From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue Oct 12 14:45:28 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04262; Tue, 12 Oct 93 14:45:25 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17299; 12 Oct 93 14:45 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01885; Tue, 12 Oct 93 11:38:23 PDT Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 11:20:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Erratum, Stream data catalog To: streampub@lternet.washington.edu, PI@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear Stream catalog authors and PIs: Please note the following and include an erratum note with any copies of the stream catalog you distribute from your site. On p. 44, IV.B.: Chlorophyll units should be mgm-2 NOT ug m-2 (micrograms) From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue Oct 12 16:51:38 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04497; Tue, 12 Oct 93 16:51:34 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02962; 12 Oct 93 16:51 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02914; Tue, 12 Oct 93 13:45:41 PDT Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 13:38:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Press Coverage of LTER Program To: PI@lternet.edu Cc: cBledsoe@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: FYI, I've learned that this Friday's issue of Science magazine will contain Rich Stone's article on the LTER Program. (He's the writer who attended the All Sci Meeting. I've also tracked down an article that appeared prior to the meeting as a result of our promotion in the Rocky Mountain News. It features the Niwot Ridge and Central Plains sites and provides a summary on the whole Program. I'm sending copies to the two Colorado sites, but if any of the rest of you would like a copy, please let me know. Stephanie LTER Network Office From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Fri Oct 15 18:38:24 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04884; Fri, 15 Oct 93 18:38:11 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09800; 15 Oct 93 18:37 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18194; Fri, 15 Oct 93 15:36:38 PDT Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 15:16:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: New LTER Network slides To: PI@lternet.edu Cc: jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, pPenhale@lternet.washington.edu, tCallahan@lternet.washington.edu, aSocci@lternet.washington.edu, jEdwards@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: As noted in an earlier message, I have sent each site one set of the new slides, one of the new ecosystem map with the LTER sites located (which appears in the new brochure), and one of a simpler two-color map developed at the Network Office by Ken Bible. Following is a list of the particular individuals to whom the slides were sent. Please ask for duplicates from the person listed for your site. When making duplicates, please include the statement regarding copyright restrictions on the ecosystem map. AND - Fred Swanson ARC - John Hobbie BNZ - Keith Van Cleve CDR - David Tilman CPR - Bill Lauenroth CWT - Judy Meyer HFR - David Foster HBR - Hubbard Brook JRN - Bill Schlesinger KBS - Kay Gross KNZ - Alan Knapp LUQ - Robert Waide MCM - Robert Wharton NWT - Nel Caine NTL - John Magnuson PAL - Robin Ross SEV - Bruce Milne VCR - Bruce Hayden Other: NSF - James Gosz, DEB Polly Penhale, Polar Programs Caroline Bledsoe From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Thu Oct 21 14:11:16 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09245; Thu, 21 Oct 93 14:11:15 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20977; 21 Oct 93 14:11 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06698; Thu, 21 Oct 93 11:07:58 PDT Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 10:46:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Article on LTER in SCIENCE Magazine To: PI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: The release date I was given for the SCIENCE article resulting from our presswork at the All Scientists Meeting turned out to be an internal one at the magazine. The issue containing the LTER article is Vol. 262, October 15, 1993, which I now understand will be out THIS Friday. Stephanie Martin Publications LTER Network Office From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:sollinsp@ccmail.orst.edu Fri Oct 22 17:42:54 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12585; Fri, 22 Oct 93 17:42:51 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16647; 22 Oct 93 17:42 EDT Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12107; Fri, 22 Oct 93 14:37:59 PDT Received: from ccmail.orst.edu (ccmail-5.UCS.ORST.EDU) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu with SMTP id AA16670 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 22 Oct 1993 14:37:54 -0700 Received: from cc:Mail by ccmail.orst.edu id AA751321941 Fri, 22 Oct 93 13:32:21 PST Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 13:32:21 PST From: sollinsp@ccmail.orst.edu Message-Id: <9309227513.AA751321941@ccmail.orst.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: "Soil survey" survey Status: OR Dear Colleagues: At the All-Scientists Meeting, we offered to compile information on soil surveys and soil maps available for each LTER site. Since it is not clear who at each site is most involved in soil survey, we have addressed this to the site PIs and ask that you forward it to the appropriate people at your site. In responding, please include the following information. If more than one survey or map has been done, we'd appreciate a separate paragraph on each. If no survey or map has been done, please describe any future plans, or indicate that nothing is planned. date authors, affiliations area covered (name, size, boundaries -- indicate if part of larger survey) map scale sampling density (pits, auger holes) sampling depth sampling by horizons or depth? analyses performed were pedons classified? by what system? are profile descriptions available? field and lab data available? data available as GIS layer (indicate GIS system) soil samples archived? report available? (citation) paper maps available? (contact person) future plans We will compile the information and write it up as an article for the LTER newsletter. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Phil Sollins / Rich Boone From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Wed Oct 27 17:34:32 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21772; Wed, 27 Oct 93 17:34:30 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26254; 27 Oct 93 17:34 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20376; Wed, 27 Oct 93 14:26:51 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 14:26:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: "Official Minutes" from Climate Committee (fwd) To: PI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR LTER CLIMATE COMMITTEE MEETING Estes Park, Colorado ALL SCIENTISTS MEETING 9/19/93 Minutes recorded by Phyllis Adams and edited by David Greenland. Present at the meeting were: Doug Schaefer (LUQ), Les Viereck (BNZ), Phyllis Adams (BNZ), Emery Boose (HRF), Lloyd Swift (CWT), Alok Sikka (AND), Robert Griffiths (AND), Randy Wynne (NTL), Paul Bolstad (CWT), John Magnuson (NTL), Rick Ingersoll (NWT), Tim Bardsley (NWT), Alan Yeakley (CWT), Dale Robertson (NTL), Douglas Moore (SEV), Peter Homann (AND), Mark Losleben (NWT), Joan Foote (BNZ), Karen Baker (PAL), David Greenland (AND,NWT). Apologies: Tim Kittel (CPR), Bruce Hayden (VCR). The LTER Climate Committee meeting opened with introductions of all participants and a short summary of the function and history of the group. REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES SINCE LAST MEETING: Although no major projects have been undertaken within the last 3 years, members of the Climate Committee participated in a number of activities. These include: A. An update of the climate description document was proposed at the 1990 meeting. A proposal, "An Updated Climatic Description and Synthesis Document for Long- Term Ecological Research Sites", written by David Greenland, Tim Kittel, and Bruce Hayden, was submitted to NSF Long-Term Studies in March 1992. Although it had the support of the LTER Coordinating Committee, this proposal was rejected by NSF due to other funding priorities. Jerry Franklin has recommended that this proposal be resubmitted especially in light of the current emphasis by NSF on intersite research activities. B. The decision at the 1990 meeting to distribute climate related information resulted in the Climate/Ecosystem Dynamics (CED) newsletter. This document, produced by Bruce Hayden, is distributed approximately every six weeks by e-mail, and has proved to by very entertaining and informative. C. GCM generated data have been uploaded to the LTER network system, and are available on line for select areas. Bruce Hayden and Rudolf Nottrott were responsible for this. D. David Greenland participated in the Ninth Annual Pacific Climate (PACLIM) Workshop at Asilomar, CA April 21-24, 1992 resulting in a proceedings publication, "Climate Studies in the Long-Term Ecological Research Program" E. The Climate Committee was represented by David Greenland at the LTER/NASA Remote Sensing Workshop at Sevilleta in November 1992. A separate Network report on this Workshop is available from the Network Office. A spin-off publication from this was "Use of satellite-based sensing in land surface climatology" D. Greenland. Progress in Physical Geography. 17(4)461-474. F. As representative of the Climate Committee, David Greenland has provided advice and information to various requests including data for the updated Blue (Green) Book. Climate Committee members have also supported and aided the LTER Data Managers efforts to develop an Inter-Site on line Climate Database. CLIMATE AS A CORE AREA A proposal was presented by John Magnuson to designate Climate as a core area for LTER studies. This concept developed out of the concern recently expressed in the ten year review document to re-examine the core areas, because climate is viewed as a basic component of LTER sites and is specifically considered in many of the principal hypotheses investigated at individual sites. Climate is not only a disturbance factor common to all sites but a major driving control of the whole ecosystem of the sites. Advantages of having climate as an explicit core area were discussed and included the facts that it would : -- Help to emphasize the important two way interaction between the atmosphere and biosphere and thus aid the generation of better research questions. This relates particularly to the kinds of questions that climatologists ask of ecologists and vice versa. --Provide for more effective convergence of atmosphere / biosphere links. There is already in atmospheric science a growing awareness of the need to pay heed to the biosphere, and in ecology there is a growing awareness of the need to treat atmospheric processes. The already existing, and very important, convergence of these trends in the two disciplines would be speeded if climate were considered more explicitly in LTER core areas. --Provide better spatial and temporal scaling of climate variation for process based distributed modeling efforts. --Provide better link to climate models and the climate modeling community so that ecologists could enter into more direct dialog with the latter community. --Stimulate development and seeking out of climatic expertise at the institutions where LTER sites are based. --Promote active use of climate database at each site. --Emphasize the fact that climate and climatic data is one of the few synthesizers available across the LTER Network. It was decided that David Greenland, on behalf of the Climate Committee, would write to the LTER Coordinating Committee expressing these views. REVIEW OF CLIMATE WORK AT LTER SITES A representative of each LTER site (of those that were present) gave a brief summary of historical climate records available as well as some of the more important past and ongoing climate-related projects at the LTER sites. Common themes include measurements of micro/meso scale variables and fluxes, hydrological measurements and modeling, and some type of atmospheric deposition measurements. Many sites have established, or are establishing, a mesoscale network of observing stations to supplement the data from the their "primary" meteorological sites. Climate data have been used at all sites to drive ecological models such as Forest Gap Models and CENTURY. Certain sites pursued climate-related studies which would be impossible, for various reasons, to duplicate across all sites. Outstanding examples of these are the carbon dioxide flux eddy- correlation tower studies at Harvard Forest, coherence among lake climate and chemistry at the North Temperate Lakes, and the lightning strike studies at the Sevilleta site. Rick Ingersoll reported on the data managers project which surveyed data collected electronically at the sites. This survey identified common problems and is updated twice a year and is available on Gopher. Concerns were expressed about how best to perform a times series analysis / synthesis of climate data of the LTER sites. In some cases, standardization of the analyses may not pick up the correct time window needed to detect anomalies. A robust analysis across sites will have to incorporate identification of that window individually for each site. Doug Schaefer agreed take responsibility for, and be lead author on, a paper which reviews already completed and in progress climatic studies and observations at LTER sites. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER ACTIVITIES There was discussion about a variety of potential research and other projects which could be pursued by the Climate Committee. The following summarizes the activities finally agreed upon for the next three year period. A. Resubmit proposal--the proposal to update the Climatic Description and Synthesis Document will be rewritten and resubmitted to NSF. B. CED Advertisement--David Greenland will submit a letter to the LTER Network News about CED and how to get on the mailing list. C. Revision of Site Climate Analysis Document--a proposal will be submitted to revise the Site Climate Analysis document. D. Participate in El Nino activities-- Climate Committee members will actively participate in the El Nino workshop at the LTER All Scientists Meeting, and will be involved in activities resulting from that workshop. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jcallaha@nsf.gov Mon Nov 15 08:52:13 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14457; Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:52:12 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07907; 15 Nov 93 8:52 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13508; Mon, 15 Nov 93 05:48:33 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA33824 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 15 Nov 1993 08:52:40 -0500 Message-Id: <199311151352.AA33824@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Questions Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:52:40 EST From: "James T. Callahan" Status: OR Tim Seastedt recently asked about REU supplements for LTERs. You may have received REU supplement info from our division recently. For LTER DO NOT request ANY supplements until asked to do so. I don't, at this time, have any idea what the supp funds pictire will be for FY94. Tom Callahan From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:parmentr@puerco.unm.edu Mon Nov 15 10:28:03 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14636; Mon, 15 Nov 93 10:28:02 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24302; 15 Nov 93 10:27 EST Received: from puerco.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13806; Mon, 15 Nov 93 07:24:12 PST Return-Path: Received: by puerco.unm.edu (5.57/VISION/14Apr88/C) id AA10540; Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:24:05 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:24:05 -0700 From: parmentr@puerco.unm.edu Posted-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:24:05 -0700 Message-Id: <9311151524.AA10540@puerco.unm.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Status: ORS Memo to: ALL LTER RESEARCHERS From: Bob Parmenter, Sevilleta LTER Subject: REU Site Program at Sevilleta The UNM Department of Biology is soliciting applications from undergraduate students for participation in a Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. If you know of any undergraduates that might be interested in spending the summer of 1994 on the Sevilleta as an REU student, please have them contact me at the address/phone/email listed below. Thanks for your cooperation! -- Bob Parmenter ********************************************************************** 1994 SUMMER RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS WITH THE SEVILLETA LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM The UNM Department of Biology is continuing its NSF-sponsored site program for RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATES (REU). The program is designed to promote the inclusion of undergraduate science majors in scientific studies in collaboration with the Sevilleta LTER Program. As such, the Sevilleta REU Program will again offer 10 undergraduate research stipends to selected students during the summer of 1994. The Sevilleta Research Region: Students will participate in ongoing ecological studies of plants, animals, and biogeochemical cycles, involving the Sevilleta Research Region in the central Rio Grande valley of New Mexico. The research sites include the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, the Sierra Ladrones Wilderness Study Area, and the Magdalena Mountains (Cibola National Forest). These areas cover approximately 1,000 square miles of central New Mexico, and include a wide variety of biomes and habitat types. Habitats under study include Rio Grande Riparian Cottonwood Forest, Chihuahuan Desert, Great Plains Grasslands, Great Basin Shrub-Steppe, Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands, Mixed-Conifer Forests, and Subalpine Spruce-Fir-Aspen Forests and Meadows. Elevations in the study areas range from 4,400 ft at the Rio Grande to almost 11,000 ft in the Magdalena Mountains. REU Program Description: Students will assist UNM biologists with ongoing field research projects in botanical and zoological studies during the summer of 1994 (12 weeks). In addition, each student will undertake an independent research project in collaboration with a selected faculty advisor. Project topics in 1994 include studies of grassland wildfires, mammalian parasitology, arthropod ecological physiology, plant ecology, and riverine nutrient dynamics. These projects will teach the student how to (1) develop hypotheses, design and implement a scientific study, (2) analyze and interpret data, and (3) write a scientific manuscript for journal publication. Students also will give pre-project and post-project seminar presentations to fellow REU students and UNM faculty and staff. Students will also participate in the UNM Biology Course, ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH TECHNIQUES, (BIOLOGY 402, 3 Credit Hours), during the summer semester at the Sevilleta Field Station (tuition will be free). Student Housing: Students will live at the UNM Sevilleta Field Research Station located near the Headquarters of the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. Students will be given quarters with other REU students in 3-bedroom houses at the station. Lodging is free for REU students. Houses contain fully-equipped kitchens for meal preparation. Student Stipends: Each student will receive a $230/week stipend for participating in the 12 weeks of the REU Program. Eligibility and Qualifications: Student applicants must be enrolled in an undergraduate college or university program, and must not have received their degree prior to the summer program. Applicants must be U.S. citizens. Students should have a strong academic background in biology and ecology, and be highly motivated for independent research. Knowledge of computers, word-processing software and basic statistics would be extremely useful, but not required. The UNM REU Program is an equal opportunity program; women and minorities are encouraged to apply. The Sevilleta Field Station is also wheelchair accessible. APPLICATION DUE DATE: February 25, 1994. SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS WILL BE NOTIFIED STARTING MARCH 14, 1994. FOR APPLICATION PACKETS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: DR. ROBERT R. PARMENTER REU PROGRAM COORDINATOR DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, CASTETTER HALL UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87131. Telephone: 505-277-7619 FAX: 505-277-5355 Bitnet: PARMENTR@UNMB.BITNET Internet: parmentr@sevilleta.unm.edu **************************************************************************** From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:deb@aristida.cfnr.colostate.edu Mon Nov 15 16:15:15 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01627; Mon, 15 Nov 93 16:15:13 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab11213; 15 Nov 93 16:15 EST Received: from aristida (aristida.CFNR.ColoState.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14061; Mon, 15 Nov 93 08:54:03 PST Received: by aristida (4.1/SMI-DDN) id AA08654; Mon, 15 Nov 93 09:53:58 MST Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 09:53:58 MST From: Deb Coffin Message-Id: <9311151653.AA08654@aristida> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Post doc position in ecology Status: ORS PLEASE CIRCULATE: POST-DOCTORAL ASSOCIATE POSITION (Available Immediately) One position is available for a post-doctoral associate to evaluate interactions between grasses,shrubs, and trees in order to understand controls on the tallgrass prairie-forest transition in North America. The work will be part of a research project in which we are evaluating changes in species and lifeform composition for a gradient from the shortgrass steppe in northeastern Colorado to tallgrass prairie and deciduous forest in eastern Kansas. Our objectives are to use field studies, archival data, and simulation modeling to account for existing patterns in vegetation and ecosystem processes under current environmental conditions, and to assess potential responses of ecosystems to environmental variability, including climate change. We are using four simulation models in the analysis: two individual plant growth models, one for grasslands (STEPPE) and one for forests (ZELIG), a nutrient cycling model (CENTURY), and a soil water model (SOILWAT). Applicants should have a strong ecological background, and preferably good quantitative skills. Good oral and written communication skills are essential. This is a 1-year appointment with the possibility of renewal depending on funding availability. Salary is $28,000/y. This is a collaborative project between D. P. Coffin, T. B. Kirchner, W. K. Lauenroth, W. J. Parton, and D. L. Urban at Colorado State University, and H. H. Shugart and T. M. Smith at the University of Virginia. Interested persons can contact Dr. Debra Coffin (telephone: 303/491-7662; email:deb@aristida.cfnr.colostate.edu) for additional information. Applicants should send a cover letter, CV, copies of publications, and names, addresses and phone numbers of three references to either Debra P. Coffin or William K. Lauenroth, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. The position will remain open until a suitable candidate is found. Colorado State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Office of Equal Opportunity, 21 Spruce Hall, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Wed Nov 24 14:34:45 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21336; Wed, 24 Nov 93 14:34:44 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20149; 24 Nov 93 14:34 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA29480; Wed, 24 Nov 93 10:44:03 PST Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 09:28:01 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: 2nd International Conference on Science & Mgmt. of Protected Areas To: PI@lternet.edu, LMERPI@lternet.edu Cc: jGosz@nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR 11/24/93 Dear PIs: The Network Office received notice of a conference you may wish to attend. The 2nd International Conference on Science & the Management of Protected Areas, May 16-20, 1994, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, will be a forum for a government and university scientists, managers, consultants, non-government organizations, and interested individuals. THEME: Ecosystem Monitoring and Protected Areas (The conference will consider the science and management of whole-system monitoring in both terrestrial and marine environments.) ENDORSERS: World Conservation Union (IUCN), WWF Canada, Man and the Biosphere Program (Canada), The George Wright Society, Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association and Parks (Canada). The conference will utilize the following format: OVERVIEWS: 45-minute illustrated talks on broad topic areas. Speakers will be invited to introduce sessions devoted to particular topic areas, including: 1. Protected Areas, biosphere reserves and global change 2. Ecological Monitoring programs and networks 3. Ecosystem monitoring in ocean environments 4. Methods for ecosystem monitoring and data analysis 5. Assessing the effectiveness of monitoring programs 6. State of the Environment Reporting 7. Environmental impact assessment 8. Partnerships and volunteers in monitoring programs 9. Ecological monitoring and public education 10. Ecological and environmental indicators 11. Measuring and monitoring biodiversity 12. Landscape management and ecosystem integrity 13. Ecosystem monitoring and human health PAPERS: 15-minute presentations (+5 minutes for questions) on specialized topics falling within identified topic areas. These will form the primary content of the conference and will be based on abstracts received from interested individuals. Papers will be published in camera-ready format and complete manuscripts must be received by the time the conference ends--May 20, 1994. (The official language of the conference will be English.) POSTERS: Displays will be mounted on boards. Several boards should be arranged to fit within 1.1.2m and should contain enough information to be self-explanatory. WORKSHOPS: Workshop will provide opportunities for activities such as meetings of working groups, development of proposals, and discussion. Workshop proposals are welcome and may be made at any time, but priority for room space will be assigned in order of receipt. SYMPOSIUM: A symposium on Marine Protected Areas will be held. EXHIBITS: Exhibit space will be available for commercial, government, other exhibitors, and for demonstrations on information and data management technology. ABSTRACTS: Abstracts for papers and posters are due no later than January 15, 1994. REGISTRATION FEE: $160 (Canadian), which includes payment for the proceedings ($50 value) FOR MORE INFORMATION and abstract forms: Mr. Neil Monro, Parks Canada, Historic Properties, Upper Water Streeet, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3J 1S9, 902-426-7012 (FAX). From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jerry@lternet.edu Mon Nov 29 19:05:13 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02958; Mon, 29 Nov 93 19:05:12 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16488; 29 Nov 93 19:05 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14427; Mon, 29 Nov 93 16:03:55 PST Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 16:03:55 -0800 (PST) From: Jerry Franklin Subject: International LTER business To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, Daniel Pommert , kBible@lternet.washington.edu, gStought@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR To: LTER Principal Investigators, J. Gosz, Net. Office Staff From: Jerry Franklin, Chair, LTER/CC Subject: Followup on International Summit and other int'l aspects of the LTER program Jim Gosz called recently to (1) report on what he found out during a recent trip to Hungary (copy trip report attached) and (2) what NSF is prepared to do in supporting the initial development of international collaborative activities. International Programs at NSF is very interested in encouraging the development of links between US LTER sites and comparable foreign programs. Identification of paired sites and initiating actions that would make such partnerships a reality have high priority. NSF is ready to entertain proposals for initiating international activities. There are currently funds in the range of $100,000 for use over a 3-year period to get things started. Funding could come either as supplements to existing LTER grants or as part of an umbrella grant to the network office. The network office intends to seek some funding for such activities, particularly those associated with implementing the recommendations of the International LTER (ILTER) group; however, I would prefer to see as much support as possible go directly to sites as supplements to existing grants. Types of activities that NSF is thinking about include: (A) CONFERENCES, such as on methods, standardization. There is already a proposal for such a session in Hungary involving US and European scientists in spring '94. Emphasis is on having scientists present who are interested in comparability and compatibility. (B) EXCHANGES FOR PLANNING COLLABORATIONS. Support for travel and other meeting related expenses to explore potential for pairing sites in US and elsewhere. Where you need to have some scientists travel to a foreign site for 1 to 2 weeks to work with personnel on the objectives and mechanics of an exchange and/or partnership, for example. (C) TRAINING. Support for training of foreign personnel at the level of students or higher. PLEASE KEEP ME PERSONALLY INFORMED OF YOUR PLANS AND ACTIVITIES RELATED TO YOUR INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES SO THAT I CAN MAINTAIN AN OVERVIEW AS TO THE TYPE AND LEVEL OF LTER INVOLVEMENT. ----------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 93 14:37:14 EST SUMMARY TRIP REPORT FOR HUNGARY, October 23 - 29, 1993, by JAMES R. GOSZ Purpose: Identify potential partnerships among research sites and scientists for the Long Term Ecological Research program of NSF and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. This trip was developed and supported by the Eastern Europe Program (B. Thompson) of INT and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. James Gosz of NSF and James Brunt (Data and Information Management Specialist) of the University of New Mexico visited research Institutes and sites to discuss potential interactions with the LTER program. INT financed the travel to Budapest and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences made logistical arrangements and covered expenses in Hungary. This trip follows a meeting in Washington, D.C. between James Gosz, Ms. Bonnie Thompson (INT) and Professor I. Lang, former Secretary General of Hungary during which the LTER program was discussed along with potential interactions. The trip to Hungary was proposed by Professor Lang. This trip also follows and complements the results of the International Summit at the LTER All Scientists meeting in September of 1993 where recommendations and working groups were identified to pursue: 1) international directory of research sites; 2) international connectivity and communication; 3) standards and comparable methodology; 4) partnerships and promotion. The Hungarian trip addresses all of these topics. Dr. Edit Kovacs-Lang and Dr. Gabor Fekete of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences attended the International Summit and helped plan the trip. Hungarian Hosts: The Hungarians responsible for hosting and organizing the trip were: Professor Istvan Lang - former Secretary General, Science Policy Advisor to the President of the Hungarian Academy, and Chairman, Hungarian National MAB Committee. Dr. Edit Kovacs-Lang, Director of the Institute of Ecology and Botany, Hungarian Academy of Science. Dr. Gabor Fekete, Hungarian Academy of Science. Ms. Katalin Pigler, Section Head, Office of International Cooperation. Significant Meetings: Sunday, Oct. 24 Professor Istvan Lang Professor Gabor Vida, Head, Dept. of Genetics, Eotvos L. Univ. Ms Katalin Pigler This meeting was to discuss general objectives, outline the LTER program and potential international collaboration, and the strategy for the trip. Tuesday, Oct. 26 Ministry for Environmental and Regional Policy and National Authority for Nature Conservation Dr. Janos Tardy, Deputy Secretary of State and President, National Authority for Nature Conservation Dr. Istvan Major, Head, Department for Wildlife Protection Dr. Gyula Biczok, Head, Department for Geology & Landscape Protection Dr. Odon Radai, Senior Advisor Dr. T. Patkai, Information Management Mihaly Vegh, wetland specialist Wednesday, Oct. 27 Professor Istvan Lang Professor Istvan Teplan, General Director, Department of Natural Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Dr. Edit Kovacs-Lang Dr. Gabor Fekete Ms. Katalin Pigler Mr. Larry Cohen, U.S. Embassy This meeting was to summarize trip findings to date and identify future actions. In addition to these meetings, approximately 30 other scientists presented results and discussed research with us during the site visits. Sites/Institutes Visited: Institute of Ecology and Botany, Vacratot Lake Balaton and the Balaton Research Institute of Limnology, Tihany National Authority for Nature Conservation Kiskunsag National Park and Headquarters, Kecskemet Bukk National Park Sikfokut, MAB research area, Eger Botanical Department Teacher Training College, Eger General Findings: Professor Istvan Lang wrote in a recent book that Hungary has both feet on the ground - one in the 20th century and the other in the 19th century. This is a general summary of our findings as well. We encountered a modern, Western approach to ecology mixed with classical European methodology for classifying flora, etc. There are tremendous data sets that have been collected routinely and with consistent techniques, but for the most part, they are on paper and few of them published. They are just entering the computer age, not for lack of desire as much as lack of funds to purchase modern technology. There is a curious mix of interests in modern, quantitative techniques and qualitative, classical surveys. They have good taxonomic capabilities and some sites have extensive biological surveys. At least one site has information that is close to an "All Taxa Survey". Mapping is performed by hand and there is little capability for GIS or spatial analysis. The Institutes have a few PCs and some have email capabilities. Electronic data management occurs in a few situations using a dbase approach. There is little simulation modeling although there are valuable data sets that could allow such. In general, we were impressed by the quality and extent of the research data collected throughout Hungary. There are a number of sites proposed as "Protected Areas" that would complement an International LTER program. They are keenly interested in international interactions and would willingly develop collaborative research programs, share data and techniques, and coauthor publications. Most sites have extensive data sets that would interest U.S. scientists in testing hypotheses, models, etc., and the Hungarians are eager to share them. Potential Interactions/Collaboration: Site Partnerships - There are excellent sites with long term data sets and/or extensive biological surveys that can form the the basis for productive interactions with scientists at comparable U.S. LTER sites. Cross-site or Regional Collaborations - There are outstanding regional to country-wide data sets that are the basis for analyses of broad-scale dynamics. These range from floristic analyses from the late 1800's and early 1900's to a 30 year survey of light traps for insects performed at 42 stations distributed over the country. The light trap data is a DAILY quantification of insects (species, sex) in both agricultural and forest habitats. In some cases, a single trap has some 600 species recorded for a single year. This data combined with the climate data, has shown distribution changes of selected species during the recent climate warming in Hungary. Little has been done with the data regarding community analysis or biodiversity changes. Conferences/Workshops/Training - The Hungarians are eager for exchanges of scientists and have already proposed two workshops (Developing Methods for International Collaboration, GIS Applications in Natural Conservation). They also are very interested in training in GIS, Data Management and Simulation Modeling. James Brunt will address training activities in his report. Next Steps: Identify LTER sites and scientists that are interested in developing collaborative research proposals and programs. The information we gained will be presented to the LTER community. Immediate Funding Sources - proposals to INT can continue to develop scientist exchanges and workshop activities. Proposals to the Joint U.S. - Hungarian program will allow modest funding of joint activities. Mr. Larry Cohen indicated that the joint program has not received proposals in Environmental Protection this year (LTER-like proposals would qualify) and the probability of funding is very high! For further information contact me or Ms. Bonnie Thompson of International Programs at NSF. Her email address is: bhthomps@nsf.gov -------------------END OF MESSAGE----------------- From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:N_FETCHER@upr1.upr.clu.edu Thu Dec 2 15:25:51 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12713; Thu, 2 Dec 93 15:25:47 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02468; 2 Dec 93 15:25 EST Received: from UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02506; Thu, 2 Dec 93 12:23:03 PST Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 16:22 AST From: N_FETCHER@upr1.upr.clu.edu Subject: Survey of academic bureaucracies To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: <99482710FC9FC11120@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU> X-Envelope-To: pi@lternet.edu X-Vms-To: IN%"pi@lternet.edu" Status: ORp TO: Subscribers to OTS-L and LTERNET FROM: Ned Fetcher Dept. of Biology University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras As part of the accreditation process for the Middle States Review Board, I have been asked to evaluate our administration. It has always been my impression that many operations at UPR take much longer than elsewhere, but I have little data to support this. Recently, we received a memo detailing the steps needed to submit a proposal to NSF (without matching funds or cost-sharing). The memo states that we need to get the approval of the Personnel Office, the Finance Office, Dept. Chairperson, Dean of Natural Sciences and the Chancellor before the proposal can be sent. The official estimate of the time to accomplish all this is 10 working days. In my experience, it can be done in 5-6 days if no crucial individual is out of the office. I would like to conduct an informal survey to compare the speeds with which different campuses process proposals. If you will send the following information, I will be happy to share the results with you: 1) No. of approvals required (UPR example, 5) 2) Official estimate of time for approval (UPR example, 10 working days) 3) Your unofficial estimate based on your experience (UPR example, 5-6 days) Please indicate if you want your institution to remain anonymous. Thanks in advance for your contribution to the study of comparative bureaucracy. Ned Fetcher n_fetcher@upr1.upr.clu.edu From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Wed Dec 8 20:52:59 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07465; Wed, 8 Dec 93 20:52:57 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06631; 8 Dec 93 20:52 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04841; Wed, 8 Dec 93 17:51:49 PST Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 17:51:49 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Salmon Symposium Announcement (fwd) To: PI@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: You or your colleagues may be interested in this symposium announcement. ***** PACIFIC SALMON AND THEIR ECOSYSTEMS: STATUS AND FUTURE OPTIONS ***** Westin Hotel, Seattle, Washington 10-12 January 1993 An important two and one-half day symposium on Pacific Salmon is occuring in early January. This meeting will address changes in Pacific Northwest Salmonid populations, factors responsible for those changes, and options for restoration. If you would like more information on program content, please contact Deanna J. Stouder at (206) 685-2724 or by e-mail at stouder@u.washington.edu. We encourage you to take advantage of the early registration fee until 15 December. If you need registration information, please contact Continuiing Education at (206) 543-0867. We hope you will attend. This symposium should prove to be an interesting and informative event. ****************************************************************************** From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jhobbie@lupine.mbl.edu Wed Jan 5 17:36:12 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01612; Wed, 5 Jan 94 17:36:11 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa18683; 5 Jan 94 17:36 EST Received: from aqua.whoi.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18593; Wed, 5 Jan 94 14:25:38 PST Received: by aqua.whoi.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA13042; Wed, 5 Jan 94 17:24:43 -0500 Received: from eco17.lupine.mbl.edu (ECO17.MBL.EDU) by lupine (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02192; Wed, 5 Jan 94 17:13:56 EST Date: Wed, 05 Jan 1994 17:25:44 From: jhobbie To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, jcallaha@nsf.gov, jerry@lternet.edu, smartin@lternet.edu Subject: Scientific Goals of LTER - Draft Cc: jhobbie@lupine.mbl.edu Message-Id: Status: OR Note to LTER PI's: We all have received many suggestions about the goals and future of LTER over the past year. Many of these would af- fect the structure -- increase the number of sites, change the manage- ment, triple the funding for each site. These are important but should be matched by and be interactive with ideas about the scientific approaches and scientific goals of the next decade. When our success is judged in 2003, what will the criteria be? It is likely that the degree of networking will be an issue as well as the scientific value and outcomes of the networking. One outcome of the networking should be increased synthetic and predictive ability that would cover spatial and temporal scales beyond a single site or the span of a single project. Many of these ideas are now (1993) a part of the goals of LTER as laid out in the new brochure. These new LTER goals (understanding at long temporal and broad spatial scales, major synthesis and theoretical efforts, providing in- formation for the identification and solution of societal problems) have been added to the basic site- and question-oriented research of the first 12 years of LTER. Clearly there has to be additional fund- ing for LTER to reach the goals. But will the structural changes of expanding the number of sites, increasing the funding, or improving the access to remote sensing be sufficient? There needs to also be a careful analysis of the goals and the steps needed to reach them. Perhaps we will decide to recommend no change in the way LTER opera- tes. Or perhaps we might recommend a new model incorporating radical changes such as having the next two new LTER projects be wholly com- parative studies across sites or be modeling projects that deal spe- cifically with cross-site synthesis. While the answers are not clear, I think it is clear that we need to discuss the ideas and come up with an implementation plan. Is the present LTER mode of operation ade- quate or do we need to invent a different model for the next decade? Please think about the following document as a first step towards an implementation document, that is, it is an exposition of the goals and approaches. After we all discuss and fine-tune this, then we need to follow through on the next step. My suggestions for developing an implementation plan are: -- hold a small two-day workshop of five or six LTER P.I.'s and several NSF people -- refine current document on LTER scientific goals in light of comments from LTER P.I.'s -- develop strategy and tactics to make sure that we can get where we want to go over the next decade. These include specific goals and specific types of RFP's, initiatives, funding opportunities, etc. -- develop a financial plan to support the strategic and tactical planning The present document grew out of discussions at the LTER Coor- dinating Committee meetings in April 1993. The outline was developed by B. Hayden, J. Hobbie, and T. Seastedt after an initial discussion that included F. Swanson and R. Waide. The outline was re-evaluated at the 31 July 1993 meeting of the Coordinating Committee in Madison, Wisconsin, in light of the recently published Ten-Year Review of the LTER Program by the Risser/Lubchenko Committee. Copies of the outline were distributed to PI's at that time. At the request of Jerry Franklin at the September 1993 All-Scientists Meeting, I have now pro- duced a written document. The LTER Executive Committee will be meet- ing at the end of January. Please send your comments ASAP so this document can be discussed. Thanks, John Hobbie (jhobbie@lupine.mbl.edu) Draft of December 31, 1993 SCIENTIFIC GOALS FOR THE NEXT DECADE OF LTER INTRODUCTION During 1993 the LTER program underwent an extensive review by an NSF committee charged with an evaluation of past achievement and with development of ideas about future goals and program improvements. In addition, the LTER Executive Committee and the scientists of the Coor- dinating Committee produced statements about various changes and goals for the future. Many of the suggestions concerned administrative or funding issues such as the need to vastly increase funding for each individual site and the need to expand the number of sites. Other suggestions dealt with scientific issues and scientific goals such as the need to expand the ecological knowledge from specific research sites to larger regions. This present document has been assembled by the LTER Coordinating Committee to address the scientific future of LTER and describe the implementation steps [not in this document yet] to achieve the scientific goals of the next decade of LTER research. The goals of the LTER from 1980 to 1992 can be summarized from the 1991 brochure (Long-Term Ecological Research in the United States, A Network of Research Sites. Sixth Edition, LTER Publication No. 11) as follows: to study ecological phenomena occurring over decades and centuries, to study natural variability, to study long-term trends in natural ecosystems, to set up a coordinated network of sites to facil- itate comparative experiments, and to use the long-term data sets to reveal pattern and control at several levels of ecosystem organiza- tion. The ecological questions to be studied are different for each site but research at each site has included developing information on basic ecological factors such as climate and soils and on fundamental ecological processes such as primary production, decomposition, and interactions of higher trophic levels. Each site was also expected to study the effects of human or natural disturbance. The current goals of the LTER are stated in a 1993 brochure (LTER, National Research Sites with a Common Commitment, LTER Network Office, University of Washington): "Understanding general ecological phenomena which occur over long temporal and broad spatial scales Creating a legacy of well-designed and documented long-term experi- ments and observations for use by future generations Conducting major synthesis and theoretical efforts Providing information for the identification and solution of socie- tal problems" Over the decade of 1994-2004, ecologists everywhere and the LTER scientists in particular are asked to take on additional tasks. We are asked to produce information on the interactions between the natu- ral world and society, especially on the effects on natural resources of management decisions, of pollution, and of large-scale changes such as climate and landuse. In other words, ecologists must strive for a predictive understanding of these interactions. It will not be enough, however, to understand the interactions at a handful of specific sites. Instead, the predictions must be valid at larger scales of ecosystems, regions, and even continents. The LTER program has operated as individual sites pursuing ques- tions best suited to research at that site. Excellent research has been carried out at the sites and a good start has been made in some cases on joint research among sites. Yet, in the future all the sites must be engaged in strong efforts to synthesize their information to reach the understanding at the larger scales of space and time. Each site must continue its own research agenda but must also work with consortia of sites as well as incorporate data from all sites and larger regions into the understanding. Each site must include the synthesis of the traditionally disparate approaches of population, community, ecosystems, and landscape ecology in answering specific questions. We seek a new synthetic approach to ecological sciences that integrates the knowledge, techniques, and approaches of these subdisciplines. To reach these goals in the next decade, significant new research initiatives are needed in the following areas: Comparative Process Studies, Functional Bases for Biodiversity, Modeling, Regionalization, and Ecological Interactions with Society. These new initiatives are not intended to replace the current long-term and question-driven re- search of the LTER sites. Rather, the new research will add to and build upon the data, insights, and infrastructure developed in the first ten years of LTER. It is important to note that none of the goals or new research initiatives are unique to the LTER program. What is unique is the ap- plication of these goals and initiatives to a large program at 18 sites. The challenge will be to incorporate new site requirements, opportunities for special research funds, and management into the pro- gram while retaining the strong site-based research. COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES The type of predictive understanding needed by the LTER program incorporates information from a wide variety of sites. For an ecological process, such as soil respiration in temperate forests, data are needed from measurements over a wide range of temperatures and forest productivities in order to establish the full range and variation of response to environmental factors. This type of compara- tive knowledge is necessary to understand the biotic and abiotic con- trols for processes. The knowledge of controls, in turn, is the basis for modeling and prediction. One successful LTER intersite comparative study has been of lit- ter decomposition. A number of standardized litters are being in- cubated at many sites to separate the controls due to temperature and moisture from those due to the physical and chemical nature of the particular litter material. But comparative studies of processes need not be as extensive or as expensive as the litter study. Many of the measurements of popula- tions, communities, and ecosystem processes already underway at the LTER sites can be made a part of a comparative study but only if there is adequate preparation and agreement about the methods to be used and the format of the data reports. FUNCTIONAL BASIS FOR BIODIVERSITY The maintenance of a diverse biota is now recognized as an impor- tant goal for the management of natural resources. Recently, the con- cept has evolved to the understanding that ecosystem function plays a role in sustaining biodiversity and biodiversity plays a role in ecosystem functions and processes. This is really an extension of the ecological catch-word "structure and function". In this case, the structure part must include individual species. Obviously the inter-relationships between diversity and ecosystem functions are complex. They are best studied at long-term sites, such as the LTER network, where aspects of biodiversity including popula- tions and communities, genetics, evolution, and ecosystem function are being studied. When made a part of comprehensive studies, it may be also possible to group species into functional groups. These group- ings will be vital for modeling at larger spatial scales where it may be necessary to lump species by attributes, depending upon the partic- ular questions being asked. MODELING The construction of mathematical-dynamic models are a key method of scientific synthesis. Models incorporate the current understanding of a process or of ecological dynamics and give us a way to test our understanding. In some cases a model has progressed to the point where predictions may be made of the dynamics of a population, com- munity, or ecosystem. Ecological models are usually based upon processes and the con- trols of these processes. For this reason, modeling is an important activity for comparative studies that include information and under- standing from a number of the LTER sites. In turn, the different con- ditions found across the LTER network allows models and their predic- tions to be tested in a wide variety of habitats. The development of ecological models is a vital step in the prog- ression towards regionalization and the analysis of the interactions between the natural word studied by ecologists and the human society. Some of the successful models such as the GAP-type models of forest growth and the GEM models of carbon and nitrogen cycling have already been applied in a number of LTER sites. A decomposition model of the intersite litter decomposition study is under development. These suc- cessful models have often been based upon biogeochemistry. It will be necessary for LTER researchers to combine models of ecological com- munities with the biogeochemical models. REGIONALIZATION The intensive measurements at each LTER site cover a small area, usually a few square kilometers. Some of the ecological changes that occur at a site can only be interpreted by studying a larger region, such as the landscape or water basin. Studies of a larger region also allow investigation of global budgets of such materials as sulfur trace gases or of carbon gases. Human interactions with ecological systems are also best studied at the regional scale where large changes take place caused by shifts in land-use and by management de- cisions. For these reasons, the LTER network needs to be able to model and predict at the regional level. It is usually not possible simply to take a detailed ecological model developed on an LTER site and apply it at a larger spatial scale. Instead details and even processes must be aggregated, an is- sue that needs much more research. One complication is that details that are critical to include for a model at one level turn out to be unimportant at other levels. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:adub@lternet.edu Wed Jan 5 12:17:42 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00735; Wed, 5 Jan 94 12:17:41 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17550; 5 Jan 94 12:17 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22363; Wed, 5 Jan 94 09:07:35 PST Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 09:07:35 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener Sender: Adrienne Whitener Reply-To: Adrienne Whitener Subject: Missing mission statement To: pi@lternet.edu, jGosz@lternet.edu, jCallahan@lternet.edu, jEdwards@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR Regarding a letter from Jerry Franklin that we mailed on December 30, concerning LTER Executive Committee Meeting and Governance: The enclosure cited in the text of the letter wasn't noted at the bottom, and so was overlooked. Here is the Network Office Mission Statement. (It can also be found in the strategic planning document and on page 3 in the Personnel Directory). If you would like us to mail a separate hardcopy to you, please advise. We apologize for the inconvenience. --Adrienne ------------------------------ LTER Network Office Mission The Network Office was created by the LTER Network to facilitate activities needed to achieve the LTER mission and objectives. Specific responsibilities of the Network Office include: (a) Facilitating communication and data sharing among the LTER sites and between the LTER program and other scientific communities; (b) Supporting the planning and conduct of collaborative research efforts including provision of some technical support services; (c) Leading some intersite scientific activities; and (d) Providing a focal point and "collective" representation of the LTER Network in its external relationships. Since the Network Office is the primary entity focused at the network rather than at individual sites, the office often plays an active role in stimulating or catalyzing network activities rather than functioning completely in a passive or support role. (Last paragraph is language from Strategic Planning document, finalized at the October 1989 LTER Coordinating Committee meeting at Harvard Forest.) From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jerry@lternet.edu Thu Dec 30 18:08:29 1993 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA20932; Thu, 30 Dec 93 18:08:28 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12257; 30 Dec 93 18:08 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07336; Thu, 30 Dec 93 15:07:06 PST Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 15:07:02 -0800 (PST) From: Jerry Franklin Subject: LTER Exec. Meeting & Governance To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, jCallahan@lternet.washington.edu, jEdwards@lternet.washington.edu, net@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORp To: LTER PIs December 30, 1993 From: Jerry Franklin, Chairman, LTER/CC Subject: LTER Executive Committee Meeting & Governance The Executive Committee is meeting January 29-31 in Washington, DC with the governance/structure of the LTER/CC and mission/structure of the Network Office as primary topics. We will also be dealing with more routine issues and beginning to develop a collective policy on publication. An NSF representative will meet with us to provide the NSF perspective on these issues on the morning of January 29 and again on January 31 to review the conclusions of the meeting. The Executive Committee wants to solicit your views on several of these topics prior to the meeting so that we can consider them during our discussions. The plan is for the Committee to develop a position paper, possibly with several alternatives, for the full LTER/CC to consider at the time of its spring meeting. PLEASE SEND ME YOUR RESPONSES AT THE NETWORK OFFICE BY JANUARY 21; unless you advise me otherwise, I will share them verbatim with the full Executive Committee. I expect all of you to weigh with your opinions on these very important issues. There is a tendency for LTER/CC dialogues to be dominated by a few individuals. There are 18 programs out there and the Executive Committee would like to see this reflected in the responses. Questions are numbered for ease in response. Organization and Operation of the LTER/CC and Network Office How should the Chair of the LTER/CC be selected and for what tenure (1a)? What are the major responsibilities of the Chair and, hence, what attributes are most important (1b)? We have operated on the assumption that the Chair should be a well-established scientist with high credibility outside LTER. We have also assumed that it is difficult (and expensive) to acquire such senior people on a full time basis. Hence, the following question. . . Should the LTER/CC and Network Office have a full-time Executive Director to facilitate the internal operation of LTER/CC and supervise the personnel and activities of the Network Office (2)? This has been discussed in terms of an established mid-career ecological scientist, i.e., one with scientific credentials but also someone with an administrative bent. The issues of the Chair and an executive director are obviously interrelated. Whether LTER has one or both, what are the lines of accountability and what are the levels of independent responsibility (3)? The answer to this question has to take into account the fact that the PI on any NSF grant or other agreement obviously is ultimately accountable directly to the funding agency for what happens. The Network Office has always operated with two masters-- NSF and LTER/CC and will presumably continue to do so in the future. It has consistently carried out a variety of tasks that NSF needed to have accomplished and for which NSF provided funding. Such Network Office programmatic activities and responsibilities will be more explicitly recognized when the funding mechanisms changes (as planned) from a grant to a cooperative agreement beginning early in 1995. What should be the major activities/responsibilities of the Network Office (4)? Consider the existing mission statement for the network office (enclosed) as well as the dramatic expansion that is postulated for the LTER program, including activities currently facilitated or carried out by the network office. The location and mobility of the Network Office are important issues. If one assumes its importance and scale will decline in the future it is not as complex an issue. However, the probability is that the Network Office will actually increase in staff and activity level with significant expansions in the domestic and international LTER programs. There are significant costs (measured in efficiency, dollars, etc.) associated with relocation of an office of this type, including turnover of skilled staff. Alternatives include permanent status, periodic moves (5 to 10 year intervals), and a distributed office (multiple locations), perhaps where some portions (activities and personnel) are essentially fixed and others rotate among locations. What is your view on the relative merits of permanence or mobility for the network office (5)? Proposals have been made that the full LTER/CC should have more of a role in directing the activities of the Network Office. The Executive Committee was created to provide for significant involvement of PIs in the LTER Network-level activities on a timely basis. The earlier approach of operating as a committee-of-the-whole was a time-consuming and exhausting process for all concerned and did not provide for rapid responses to various challenges and opportunities, including those provided by NSF. Lack of continuity in site representatives at the LTER/CC has limited its ability to function as an informed body (while clearly entraining more of the LTER scientists in the network activities). One possibility is to create more committees from the LTER/CC to deal with specific topics, such as network- level publications. We have closely followed that model in creating many continuing committees, such as data management, climate, etc., but these are not explicitly drawn from the LTER PI group. How do you view the existing relationship between the LTER/CC, Executive Committee, and LTER/Chair (6a)? Would development of additional committees, such as one to deal with a network publications program, improve the full committee's involvement in network activities (6b)? Should we continue to allow for rotation of site representatives at the LTER/CC or should regular attendance of one or two individuals (presumably PIs) be required (6c)? Participant continuity and, probably, more frequent and longer meetings would be essential if the full LTER/CC is given more direct management responsibility for LTER network activities. Would you find these changes acceptable (6d)? Network Publications There was an extended discussion of network-level publications at the last LTER/CC meeting. Specific proposals existed for publication of a book based upon the All-Scientist meeting as well as for sponsorship of an entire book series identified with LTER. There was no resolution on either point and we lost potential editors for an All-Scientist volume. NSF expects some publication(s) out of the All-Scientist meeting as well as network initiatives for a more extended publication program. One proposal for moving things forward has been to create a publications committee from LTER/CC to develop a policy and process for major LTER-sponsored publications. Do you feel that establishing an LTER/CC Publications Committee is a good way to get this activity moving again (7a)? If not, what alternative do you propose (7b)? Finally, are you willing to serve on the committee (7c)? Other Items for Consideration Do you have any additional items that you would like to have the Executive Committee consider at the January meeting (8)? The current plan for the next full meeting of the LTER/CC is April 22 to 24, 1994, possibly in Washington, DC. Site representatives would need to arrange to be in DC by noon on April 22 so that we can interact with NSF representatives before beginning our deliberations. This will be a very important meeting where we will be dealing as a full committee with the topics discussed above. I expect the Executive Committee to come to that meeting with a white paper outlining alternatives and relevant arguments. I expect LTER/CC to make some decisions at that meeting. This is a closed meeting so we plan only one representative per site and it should almost certainly be one of the PIs. The scheduled date is over a weekend which seemed to be the majority preference at the Estes Park meeting. However, there was also strong support for a weekday meeting (e.g., noon April 20 through April 22). What are your preferences with regards to meeting date (9a)? Do you have suggestions with regards to format, participants, or location (9b)? Who do you expect your site representative to be (9c)? HAPPY NEW YEAR! cc. Bledsoe Network Office Personnel Gosz, NSF Callahan, NSF Edwards, NSF From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Tue Jan 11 10:14:29 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09743; Tue, 11 Jan 94 10:14:28 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08939; 11 Jan 94 10:14 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13292; Tue, 11 Jan 94 07:13:32 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA32456 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 11 Jan 1994 10:17:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199401111517.AA32456@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 10:17:18 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR NSF Issues Solicitation for the Academic Research Infrastructure Program The Academic Research Infrastructure Program (ARI) is designed to improve the condition of research equipment and facilities in our Nation's academic institutions in all disciplines. In FY 1994 separate competitions will be held for facilities modernization and instrumentation. This solicitation (Announcement No. NSF 93-172) is for proposals for the support of instrumentation development and acquisition only. Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be competing for about $55 million in FY 1994. The proposal success rate for the previous ARI competition was approximately 26%. The goals of the instrumentation component of the ARI Program are to: - - Support the acquisition, through purchase or development, of major state-of-the-art research instrumentation; - - Improve accessibility to and greater utilization of modern research instrumentation by scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students; and - - Foster the development of the next generation of research instrumentation through partnerships between academic researchers and private sector instrument developers. The purpose of this component is to improve research infrastructure through focused investment in the acquisition or development of major research instrumentation used for research and research training. The program also seeks to initiate instrumentation development partnerships between academia and industry. The Program will assist in the acquisition or development and maintenance and technical support of major research instrumentation that is not usually available through other NSF programs. Proposals may be for a single instrument, a large system of instruments, or multiple instruments that are used to address a common problem. A list of assorted instruments without a common research theme will not be reviewed. Awards for instrumentation will range from $100,000 to $2 million. Lesser amounts will be considered from proposals representative of undergraduate institutions or from the mathematics, social, behavioral and economic science communities. The Program will provide support for instrumentation used in research and research training in those fields of science and engineering normally supported by NSF. Proposals may be submitted by institutions of higher education, independent nonprofit research institutions, research museums, and legally incorporated consortia thereof. Computer systems or networks necessary for the purpose of carrying out research are acceptable. Proposals for computer networks as general purpose equipment will not be reviewed. Matching or cost-sharing at the level between 30-50% of total eligible project costs is required with the 50% level being strongly encouraged. The matching or cost sharing may be from any private or non-Federal public source and may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated (see OMB Circular A-110, Attachment E). An institution may only submit two proposals in response to this solicitation. However, the institution may, in addition, be included as a member of a consortium that is submitting a separate proposal. Proposals must be received by 5 p.m. March 15, 1994. For further information please contact: Office of Science and Technology Infrastructure Academic Research Infrastructure National Science Foundation Room 1270 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 (703) 306-1040 E-Mail: ari@nsf (BITNET) ari@nsf.gov (INTERNET) ------- End of Forwarded Message From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jcallaha@nsf.gov Tue Feb 1 09:50:27 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09844; Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:50:25 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07500; 1 Feb 94 9:50 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13819; Tue, 1 Feb 94 06:47:50 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA31915 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 1 Feb 1994 09:51:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199402011451.AA31915@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: jgosz@nsf.gov Subject: LTER Project Supplements for FY 1994 Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 09:51:58 EST From: "James T. Callahan" Status: ORS Attached to this message as an ASCII file (You can detach and download it.) is a memo explaining the specifications for supplements to LTER projects in FY 1994. You will notice some changes from the past. If you have questions or need explanations or clarification, please contact me directly. I will be away from the office FEB 4 - 20 while traveling to conduct the PAL on-site project review in Santa Barbara and at Palmer Station, Antarctica. WPC4 TO. FROM. SUBJECT. The purpose of this communication is to clarify the allowablerequests and application procedures for supplemental funding forLTER projects in Fiscal Year 1994. You will notice that thescope of the requests continues to change in response to thechanging needs and opportunities for LTER. Please communicatedirectly with me at the earliest opportunity if furtherclarification is needed. . .FIRST. ., each LTER project may submit only . .ONE. . supplement requestpackage. Items in the package must be individually justified inthe context of LTER. The text must not exceed 10 pages total. Only one budget may be submitted. A budget justificationstatement should make it completely clear what costs areattributable to each allowable request item (from the listingbelow). . .SECOND. ., requests should be sent directly to me and be postmarkedno later than Thursday, March 17, 1993 (earlier is better). Original and 10 copies must be sent in the same package. . .THIRD. ., allowable requests include: . . . ...... .. .. .. . . .. . .FOURTH. ., available funds will be limited (perhaps as much as$1.0M) and the total dollars requested is likely to be large. Inno case should single site requests exceed $75K. Multi.site/network requests should not exceed $150K. As always, costsharing from institutional and other non.NSF sources is stronglyencouraged and will reflect positively in the evaluation of thesupplement requests. . .FINALLY. ., in considering and scoping out what is desirable andrealistic, please keep reminding yourselves that LTER isfundamentally a network oriented, collaborative research effort,the common denominators for which are the five core researchareas and the long time frame.. .. . From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue Feb 1 13:31:37 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10259; Tue, 1 Feb 94 13:31:36 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16173; 1 Feb 94 13:31 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15064; Tue, 1 Feb 94 10:20:49 PST Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 10:20:48 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Sending Files Via FTP To: PI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: The instructions I provided for sending newsletter contributions to your site's scratch subdirectory assumed that you have a login account on LTERnet. If, in attempting to send files you see the message that you are not a valid user, you need to have Daniel or Rudolf here at the Network Office set one up for you. Alternatively, you could send files as a guest, or anonymous, user by following these steps: 1. Type "ftp lternet.edu" to connect to the LTER system. 2. At the initial prompt, type "anonymous" to sign on as a guest user. 3. At the password prompt, press the indent or tab key. 4. At ftp>, type "bin" (binary) to ensure the file arrives as formatted. 5. Type "cd/scratch". (This will put your file in a generic directory where the recipient can pick it up.) 6. Type "send filename" (or get filename" if you are retrieving a file). The message "Transfer Complete" indicates that the file has probably transferred successfully. To double-check, type "ls" to view a listing of current files. 7. Notify the recipient that you've transferred the file, and provide him/her with the file name. Again, if you are experiencing any difficulties, please check with your site technician or Data Manager, or notify me and I will work with the Network Office technical people to solve the problem. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jvc@lternet.edu Wed Feb 2 15:17:50 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14074; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:17:48 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25850; 2 Feb 94 15:17 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24703; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:05:36 PST Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 12:05:36 -0800 (PST) From: John Vande Castle Subject: LTER EXEC D.C. Meeting adn Appropriations Committee information To: LTER Principal Investigators Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The LTER Executive Committee had a productive meeting in Washington D.C. this past weekend, which included discussions with NSF personnel on Monday. Jerry Franklin will be distributing a summary of the meeting soon. Prior to this meeting I attended an NSF funded TERC workshop on "Incorporation of GIS into pre-college education". My role represented LTER as a scientific resource for education/research linkages - which was also discussed during the LTER-EXEC/NSF meetings. This would need coordination, but sites might be interested if coordination and funding became available. Merril Ridd, who attended the conference has just received NSF funding to develop curriculum to include exposure to, and use of GIS in pre-college education, and is interested in potential linkages. A full report from the conference will be available from TERC. Other discussions lead to NSF funding status, and discussion of information regarding sites providing information to members of Senate Appropriations committees (not as a lobbying effort, but perhaps to let them know what an LTER is, and that one or more was present in their state/district). -jvc John Vande Castle, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) - Network Office Univ. of Washington, College of Forest Resources, AR-10, Seattle WA 98195 Phone: 206 543-6249 FAX: 206 685-0790 Email:jvc@lternet.edu --------------------- Forwarded message ------------------------- To: jvc@lternet.edu Subject: Appropriations Committees Subject: Senate Appropriations Action On September 8, 1993, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies marked up and reported their version of the FY 1994 appropriations act. This bill contains funding recommendations for the National Science Foundation. Overall the Senate is recommending a total appropriation of $2981.9 million, which would be almost a 9% increase over the FY 1993 level of $2733.5 million and $39.4 million below the House recommendation of $3021.3 million. For Research and Related, the Senate bill is recommending a total of $1940 million. The House bill recommends $2045 million. The Senate's recommendation is $81 million or 4% above last year's level. For a new account renamed Research Infrastructure (which includes the Academic Research Facilities and Instrumentation program), the Senate is recommending an appropriation of $125 million. The House bill recommends the budget request of $55 million. For Education and Human Resources, the Senate is recommending $569.6 million. This is identical to the House recommendation and represents an increase over FY 1993 of $82.1 million or nearly 17%. For Salaries and Expenses, the Senate is recommending an appropriation of $115.5 million -- an increase of $4 million over last year, but $5.5 million below the House's FY 1994 level. In other accounts, the Subcommittee is recommending an appropriation of $2 million for the Critical Technologies Institute -- an increase of $1 million above the request and House level; $5.2 million for relocation expenses -- an amount equal to the House; and $3.99 million for the Office of Inspector General -- an amount equal to the House recommendation. Mark up by the full Senate Appropriations Committee is expected tomorrow, September 9. Floor action in the Senate, followed by a conference between House and Senate members, is likely during the week of September 20. Conferees will be the members of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies with the key issues for NSF being the recommendations for Research and Related, the facilities/instrumentation program, and NSF salaries and expenses. Major Program FY93 FY94 %Inc House Senate Conf Research 1859 2204 18% 2045 1940 Education 487 556 14% 570 570 Polar Programs 221 228 3% 221 221 Facilities & Instruments 50 55 10% 55 125 Other 116 136 17% 131 127 =============================================================== Total, NSF 2734 3180 16% 3024 2981 House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Rep. Louis Stokes (D-OH), Chairman Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) Rep. Jim Chapman (D-TX) Rep. Dean Gallo (R-NJ) Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Rep. Esteban Torres (D-CA) Rep. Ray Thornton (D-AR) Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Chair Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Sen. Chris Bond (R-MO) Sen. Robert Kerrey (D-NE) Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - ------- End of Forwarded Message From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Wed Feb 2 16:56:27 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14612; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:56:26 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12217; 2 Feb 94 16:56 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25389; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:47:07 PST Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:47:07 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: GRASS 4.1 Short Course To: PI@lternet.washington.edu, GIS@lternet.washington.edu, labtech@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR LTER neither recommends or endorses this course. This is an item sent for inclusion in the LTER Network News, which would be inappropriate, but some of you may be interested or wish to share this information with colleagues or students. GRASS 4.1 for Resource Analysis Short courses (5 days); July 25-29, 1994 Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Instructor: Dr. Fred Limp Registration Fee: $795 To register or for additional information, contact: Office of Conference Services Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 303-491-7501 or 303-491-0667 (FAX) From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Mon Feb 7 13:56:01 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28414; Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:55:59 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04828; 7 Feb 94 13:55 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27952; Mon, 7 Feb 94 10:39:46 PST Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:39:45 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: fyi (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu, lmerpi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 16:55:50 EST From: James R. Gosz Note: OSTP = Office of Science and Technology of the President - - ----------------------------------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: January 31, 1994 Bill Toohey or Rachel Kunzler (202) 224-4654 REMARKS OF U.S. SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI FOR THE OSTP FORUM ON SCIENCE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST I want to thank the President's Science Advisor, Dr. Jack Gibbons, and OSTP Associate Director for Science, Marcy Greenwood, for inviting me this morning to this forum on the future of federal science policy. I commend them for bringing together so many great individuals from government, the academic community, and the private sector to talk about one of the most important topics of our day. As you know, I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. It's an $88 billion portfolio that oversees and funds 25 different federal agencies. Outside of Senator Inouye's Subcommittee on Defense, it has the largest amount of discretionary spending of any Subcommittee in the federal appropriations process. It has four agencies that play a substantial role in funding science initiatives: EPA, the Department of Veterans Affairs, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. What makes it among the toughest assignments on the Appropriations Committee is its diversity. We fund aid for the homeless at HUD. We oversee the world's largest managed care health care system at the VA. And we make investments in science and technology which are the key to America's future. This morning, however, I'm not here to talk about funding or about bureaucracy. Instead, my message is a call to arms. We in 1994 are at a defining moment in history. We have seen the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War. Now we are in a new war -- the war for America's economic future. To win that war, we need strong leadership. To move aggressively to claim the markets of the new world order. And for that, we need a navigational chart to show us how to win jobs today and jobs tomorrow -- with science and technology as the cornerstone of our strategy. This new world order has profound repercussions for federal science policy. For the last half century -- whether in high energy physics or high performance computing -- federal science investments have largely been driven by one over-arching "strategic" objective - - --America's national military security. From smart bombs to supercomputers, investments have predominantly been driven by what contributions they make to enhancing our defense industrial base. Even the National Science Foundation, driven by Vannevar Bush's assessment of our endless scientific frontier, was a child of America's cold war policy. Now the Berlin Wall has fallen. Democracies have sprung up where once dictatorships reigned. Our nation's destiny as we approach a new millennium hinges more on our national economic security, not our miliary might. And this change has created a crisis in the science community. Old assumptions about how to organize ourselves and how to spend increasingly limited dollars seem out of step with where we as a new age democracy must move. Unless we develop a new strategy that fits the realities of the new world order, science and science funding run the risk of being left out and left behind. A good example of this changing tide was last fall's decision to terminate the supercollider, a decision I did not support. The SSC represented the classic good scientific idea, funded for the best of intentions, but gone awry. Every time you turned around, it suffered from yet another cost overrun or technical complication. No one could adequately articulate how it fit into our national strategy so that a majority of the Congress could understand its importance for our economic future. It over promised results, and understated cost. That pattern -- all too common in large federal science projects -- is what led to its demise. And the tragedy its cancellation caused was that some of the world's best scientists, having spent the better part of their professional lives working on this project, have now seen their work go up in smoke. Without a national strategy in science, and the will to see that this strategy gets implemented, federal science funding is sure to become a continuing target of opportunity for what I call the "cut cruisers" in Congress. They are my colleagues, who in a desire to cut the deficit, falsely identify science and technology as the new pork barrel spending of the 1990's. And their numbers are growing every year in both the House and the Senate. Several years ago, in response to the challenges for science in the new world order, NSF chief Walter Massey established a Commission on the Future of the NSF. The Commission's report was an important first step to begin to sort out how we should proceed with federal science policy. Last fall, my Subcommittee, as some of you might be aware, decided to elevate this debate by calling for a comprehensive reevaluation of how NSF does business, and a plan of action to keep science at the heart of our nation's economic strength. I truly believe that there is a new paradigm emerging in how science is conducted and how science policy is organized. It's based upon the principle that science -- should lead to the new ideas and new technologies -- which should lead to jobs, particularly in manufacturing. Because manufacturing is truly the engine of our economy, and our industrial strength. And in our efforts to generate those jobs, we must have a sense of urgency. Because as a nation, the U.S. is losing ground. The U.S. is losing time. And the U.S. is losing opportunities. To regain the ground we have lost over the last two decades, we must seek models of collaboration between our universities and the private sector. We must focus our science investments more strategically -- around national goals that are important to economic growth and whose results will ultimately improve people's day-to-day lives. We must train our scientists and engineers, whether they are undergraduates or PhD candidates, so they are ready to work in strategic areas in the private sector. We must prepare our best and brightest for the challenges of a job market with the uncertainties brought about by a new global economy, instead of lifelong careers in universities. The ideas that I proposed last fall are controversial -- praised by some condemned by others. The split in opinion about them reflects deeper divisions within the science community about its future in the new world order. The most controversial aspect of the Subcommittee's proposals was its call for a greater investment in "strategic" research -- a phrase used by many but which until now has lacked a common definition. In fact, we said that 60 percent of what NSF research should go for should be strategic. People ask, "What do you mean by strategic research, and where did you get the so-called 60 percent solution?" By strategic research, I mean investments in science that are focused around important national goals. Some of these have been identified already by the FCCSET process: climate change, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, and high performance computing. Others, like research on our civil infrastructure, or magnetic levitation technology, are strategic subjects that involve only one or two agencies. It does not mean that every NSF or NIH grant must result in six patents and four commercial licensing agreements. Nor does it mean that every proposal must guarantee a private sector payoff in a specific number of years. It does mean that we should be spending more than half of our basic research dollars in areas we consider strategic. Our investments in science and our science policy will become a new superhighway of ideas and technology to achieve national goals. And the best federal model I know that outlines what we consider strategic is in my very own state, whose Nobel laureate director, Harold Varmus, is here today -- the National Institutes of Health. If you look at how NIH is organized, it is grouped around strategic areas to treat and cure disease and illness -- crucial to our national well-being and which touches the day-to-day lives of millions of Americans. NIH is not organized like a university. We don't have the National Institute for Molecular Biology, we have the National Cancer Institute. We don't have a National Institute for Behavioral Science, but a National Institute for Mental Health. Within these institutes is a range of research activities -- from the most basic aspects of life and medical sciences, to the most applied activities which lead to stunning new treatments and medicines that fight disease. And in this sweeping continuum of scientific research, NIH saves lives, creates jobs, and strengthens our nation's productivity. At the heart of what we seek to do is retrieve the value of scientific activity for the post-Cold War world, without abandoning the very best of scientific inquiry or investigation. Science should continue to be the place where we test new theories, break new ground, and do that which delights scientists and mesmerizes the world -- the surprise of new discoveries. We must, however, begin to organize scientific activity, at NSF and throughout the federal government, horizontally. We must be willing to see the connections between particular disciplines which historically have few links at universities or in our federal labs -- and to structure our agencies and programs accordingly. NSF's current directorate structure is organized the way science departments are at universities. It's my belief that we need to reexamine that premise -- not because universities are organized incorrectly, but because it is the role of the federal government to be a catalyst to help get the knowledge and technologies created in our academic community into the market place. Federal science institutions need to be more nimble and more agile. Perhaps it's time for NSF to reorganize -- over time -- into a series of institutes like manufacturing, climate change, high performance computing, or other strategic areas. And even those agencies that try to be more strategic don't always get it right. That's why when we identified a problem at NIH with the amount of research devoted to the unique needs of women, and the bureaucracy wouldn't respond to these concerns, we created an Office of Women's Health. So too at a place like NSF. We created an office to deal with facility and instrumentation modernization, because there was a tremendous vacuum in dealing with our research infrastructure at universities, big and small, throughout the country. Our organizing principle for our vision of the NSF is based upon sound experience at NIH. The so-called 60 percent solution is based upon the Clinton Administration's request for the NSF for 1994 -- which proposed that 55 percent of NSF's budget should be for research in "strategic" areas. The Congress didn't pick which areas were strategic, NSF did. We simply asked them to increase their focus by 5 percent. The implications of this change to a more strategically-driven approach does not mean the end of basic research. We must do far more basic research in strategic areas. Those doing this research must recognize there's a national purpose for their work. In short, we need to rekindle in the scientific community a new sense of patriotism. That their work is funded by ordinary taxpayers -- the checkout clerk at the grocery store or a machinist on the assembly line at GM. It is not an entitlement, and it is not always guaranteed. And people will expect to see results -- not necessarily immediately, or so that every idea leads instantaneously to the marketplace. But that their basic research is part of a continuum of excellence to solve problems with new ideas and new theories. This new scientific patriotism also means having the willingness to collaborate more with industry. The private-sector Council on Competitiveness, in their landmark report, "Gaining New Ground", said that the reason we could restore our prowess in so many critical technology areas was because we had the best minds in the finest academic institutions in the world. But too often the collaboration between industry and the university community was too scattered or uneven to move ideas into the marketplace quickly. Over the last several years, various models have emerged to try and address this private sector-university collaboration. Some models have worked well, others less so. What we need to do, as a community, beginning at the NSF, is take a hard look at all of the various models, and undertake a serious evaluation of what works and what doesn't, and why. We should do this review quickly and thoroughly so that we invest our limited federal dollars so that we strengthen successful models, and eliminate those that aren't. Because we don't have one dollar to waste in the war for our economic future. Finally, as we begin to set out on a research agenda that has a strategic focus, we must build in rigorous milestones and evaluation of our efforts. In areas like manufacturing or high performance computing, we need to ask ourselves: o what goals do we seek to achieve; o what are the specific benchmarks along the way we can measure our progress in achieving these goals; and o how do the federal investments we make parallel the priorities we have set in these areas. When NASA starts a major space science project, every 6 months they report to the Congress on how their current efforts compare to their original estimates for cost, schedule and scientific and technical content. It holds them accountable to the public, to the Congress, and to the President. It helps them spot problem areas that can then be addressed. We need those kind of measurable benchmarks for strategic initiatives like manufacturing and high performance computing. These are investments, not just for the sake of those who do the research, but for all Americans. And as investments, the public needs to know where we're going, why we're going there, and once we start, how well we're doing to reach the goals we set out to achieve. These challenges in the days ahead will not be easy. And our deliberations to achieve them should not be reckless. But we must move forward with urgency. Today, we are just 2,752 days from the year 2000. A new millennium is coming. A new century will be born. We need to make sure that America's scientists and engineers will help us chart the way so our economy is strong, and we enjoy the quality of life we have enjoyed since the end of the Second World War. And I look forward to working with all of you so the future of science is as bright as the images from the Hubble Telescope -- contact lens and all. - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:cohenw@ccmail.orst.edu Thu Feb 24 12:33:45 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11028; Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:33:44 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15625; 24 Feb 94 12:34 EST Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26497; Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:28:30 PST Received: from ccmail.orst.edu (ccmail-4.UCS.ORST.EDU) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu with SMTP id AA29255 (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Thu, 24 Feb 1994 09:28:20 -0800 Received: from cc:Mail by ccmail.orst.edu id AA762109926 Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:12:06 PST Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:12:06 PST From: cohenw@ccmail.orst.edu Message-Id: <9401247621.AA762109926@ccmail.orst.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu, remote@lternet.edu, lmer@lternet.edu, cern@lternet.edu Subject: Landsat Pathfinder Program Status: OR CANDIDATE TEST SITES FOR THE LANDSAT PATHFINDER GLOBAL TEST SITE INITIATIVE The Landsat Pathfinder Program is a NASA activity, of which the objective is to provide the science community with data sets from Landsat MSS and TM sensors in support of Earth System Science and the study of global change. Along with other Pathfinder Programs, Landsat Pathfinder activities are seen as precursors to NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) and will provide near-term data sets with which to develop and test the various components of the EOS Data and Information System. The Landsat Pathfinder Program currently has three priority foci: the North American Landscape Characterization Project, The Humid Tropical Forest Project, and the Global Land Cover Test Site Project. While the first two projects are well developed, the Test Site Project is just taking shape. The purpose of the Test Site Project is to develop a multitemporal MSS, TM, and 1 km AVHRR data base for a number of test sites around the globe to support research, development, testing, and validation of improved algorithms for EOS. The test sites selected are to represent a wide range of global land cover types, be well characterized on the ground, have on-going field-based monitoring programs, and be of interest to the international global change research community. The first phase of the project is to select the test sites and develop the basic image data base. The second phase is to prototype further developments of the data base using one or more sites. A third phase is likely to be the implementation of prototype developments on other sites. The purpose of this message is to alert you that you can have significant input to the Test Site Project. Immediate input that you can have is to suggest test sites. Not all suggested sites will be chosen, but with possibly as many as 100 sites globally being selected, it seems worth the effort of making suggestions. Test site sizes are expected to be variable. For each site, a 500 km by 500 km rectangle, with the test site at the center, will be identified. For this rectangle, daily AVHRR data from May 1992 through April 93 will be registered to the Digital Chart of the World, and MSS data from the 70s and 80s and TM data from the 80s and 90s will be coregistered. The site is expected to supply a land cover type map for the site. Selection of MSS and TM scenes will be made in consultation with a site PI. What is needed now for each suggested site is: 1) lat/long for site center; and 2) a site PI or contact person. At this time, only sites in North America are required. Very shortly, international sites will be selected. Please inform me with test site suggestions at Warren Cohen Forestry Sciences Lab 3200 SW Jefferson Corvallis, OR 97331 503-750-7322 (voice) 503-750-7329 (FAX) cohen@fsl.orst.edu (internet) S26L05A (DG) *** Unfortunately, the window of opportunity for site selection is short. Please have your suggestions to me by 7 March (94).*** Thanks, Warren From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:adub@lternet.edu Fri Mar 11 20:01:45 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15639; Fri, 11 Mar 94 20:01:40 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27288; 11 Mar 94 20:01 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20920; Fri, 11 Mar 94 16:59:44 PST Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 16:59:43 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: APRIL EXEC/CC TRAVEL INFO To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR LTER Executive and Coordinating Committee Meetings, April 21-24, 1994, Arlington, VA PLEASE NOTE THESE DEADLINES: BY ** MARCH 21 ** GUARANTEE YOUR HOTEL ROOM BY ** APRIL 5 ** ARRANGE AIRLINE TICKETS (Instructions below) This is a LIMITED meeting, to be attended by one representative per LTER site, plus the Executive Committee. The Exec meeting begins at 8am on Fri 4/22; the CC meeting begins at 1pm, also on Fri 4/22. Please read and bring with you the full agenda and other information that was recently mailed to site PIs. Schedule your travel according to the following agenda. THURSDAY 4/21: EXEC COMMITTEE TRAVEL DAY Execs should arrive by 730pm for dinner with Jerry FRIDAY 4/22: COORDINATING COMMITTEE TRAVEL DAY 8am-noon: EXEC MEETING, hotel conference room (Execs only) 1pm-4pm: CC MEETING begins at NSF SATURDAY 4/23 8am-530pm: Closed CC meeting, hotel conference room SUNDAY 4/24 8am-3pm: CC meeting, continued, hotel conference room PLEASE SCHEDULE DEPARTURES AFTER 3PM, Sunday, 4/24. LODGING: A block of single rooms is reserved at the ARLINGTON RENAISSANCE HOTEL, 950 N. Stafford St., Arlington, VA. PLEASE PHONE THE HOTEL AND GUARANTEE YOUR ROOM WITH A CREDIT CARD BY MARCH 21, 1994: 1-800-228-9898. Identify yourself as an LTER meeting participant. The hotel is one block South of, but adjacent to, the Metro Ballston Station and NSF building. (Yes, you heard right - you will have single rooms. No doubles are available during the meeting dates, and the per person rate is the same.) The rate is $97.46/night (incl. tax), and will be reimbursed by the Network Office. Check-in time is 3pm; check-out by noon. AIRLINE TICKETS: GLOBAL EXPRESS TRAVEL, 1-800-448-2211: Air travel for Exec Committee members plus one CC rep per site will be direct-billed to the LTER Network Office. Contact John, Ann or Annie in Corporate Travel at Global Express, and identify yourself as a participant in the LTER meeting in Arlington, VA. You can fly into either Dulles or Washington National. If you add non-LTER travel to your itinerary, please request a quote for the additional cost so you can reimburse the Network Office. GROUND TRANSPORTATION: From Washington National-- On the Metro Blue Line, take the "Addison" train West to Roslyn Station. Transfer to the "Vienna" train on the Orange Line, and disembark at Ballston Station ($1 fare). The Arlington Renaissance Hotel is one block South of, but adjacent to, the Ballston Metro Station and the NSF building. >From Dulles International-- Take the Washington Flyer shuttle to Metro West Falls Church Station ($8 fare). On the Orange Line, take the "New Carrollton" train East to Ballston Station ($1 fare). The Arlington Renaissance Hotel is one block South of, but adjacent to the Ballston Metro Station and the NSF building. The Network Office has ordered Metro System Guides and a Washington Flyer timetable, which will be mailed to you as soon as we receive them. FOOD: Group dinner reservations will be made at nearby restaurants for the Exec on Thursday night and the CC on Friday and Saturday. You will pay for your own meals and be reimbursed by the Network Office. With the exception of catered lunch on Sunday, there will be no group reservations for breakfasts and lunches. Snacks and beverages will be served in the hotel conference room at morning and afternoon breaks. A hardcopy of this message and additional travel information will be mailed to you; please send E-mail to aWhitener@LTERnet.edu if you would prefer NOT to receive further travel info in the mail, or if you have any questions. ----THE END--- From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:adub@lternet.edu Mon Mar 14 12:15:02 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06635; Mon, 14 Mar 94 12:14:58 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25728; 14 Mar 94 12:14 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28107; Mon, 14 Mar 94 09:11:43 PST Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 09:11:43 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: APRIL EXEC/CC INFO clarifications To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR My original message showed the CC travel day as 4/22, the same day the CC meeting begins at 1pm. If you can't make it to Arlington by noon or 1pm on 4/22 with same-day travel, please feel free to travel on 4/21! PLEASE NOTE: The dates in the hotel reservation system are check-in 4/21 or 2/22, check-out 4/24. Our group room rate only applies to that time frame. If you arrive earlier or depart later, they will take your reservation, but your room rate for the extra days will be almost DOUBLE the group rate. Also, BE SURE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS LTER, and DO NOT mention NSF!! They have hundreds of NSF groups, and will easily be confused. Thanks. --Adrienne ---------------------------------------------------------------- | Adrienne Whitener | phone: (206) 543-4853 | | LTER Network Office | FAX: (206) 543-7295 | | Univ. of Washington, AR-10 | E-mail: AWhitener@LTERnet.edu | | Seattle, WA 98195 | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Thu Mar 24 13:01:08 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12341; Thu, 24 Mar 94 13:01:07 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07721; 24 Mar 94 13:01 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22012; Thu, 24 Mar 94 10:00:10 PST Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 10:00:10 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Presentation on Palmer Station To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: aWhitener@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Those of you who plan to arrive early for the Coordinating Committee Meeting may wish to consider attending this presentation. =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 24 Mar 94 10:33 EST From:ppenhale@nsf.gov To: smartin@lternet.edu Thursday, April 21, 8 pm, NSF , Room 375 The Antarctican Society Meeting "Aerobics to Zodiacs: An A to Z Guide to Life at Palmer Station" A slide=illustrated talk by Ms. Ann Peoples, Station Manager, Palmer Station The lecture is open to the public. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I thought those PIs who arrive the day before the CC meeting might be interested in attending, to get a view of the area surrounding one of the Antarctic LTER sites. With our new building, people need to come into the building and go to the second floor NSF general public lobby with guard. The South doors are always locked, so they need to enter through the north door or through the walkway from the Metro station or from the mall. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Fri Apr 1 09:35:48 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11257; Fri, 1 Apr 94 09:35:46 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09376; 1 Apr 94 9:35 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09482; Fri, 1 Apr 94 06:28:34 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA18231 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Fri, 1 Apr 1994 09:27:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199404011427.AA18231@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: smartin@lternet.edu, jerry@lternet.edu Subject: Special announcement Date: Fri, 01 Apr 94 09:27:44 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH Special Announcement LTER Project Augmentation for Regionalization, Comprehensive Site Histories, and Increased Disciplinary Breadth Special Competition DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS: May 1, 1994 OBJECTIVE: Managing the earth's natural resources is important but complex. Decisions concerning the management of those resources need to be based on the values expressed by diverse constituencies and represent judgments by decision makers who consider as much evidence as possible. Many such decisions have been made without adequate knowledge of the consequences of the actions as they relate to the near-term and long-term availability and quality of natural resources and vital ecological processes. The scientific community must consider these needs in research designed to acquire knowledge relevant to national priorities. The most useful information about natural resources will have several characteristics: * the data will be of sufficient duration that it will be possible to distinguish short-term variation from long-term trends * the data will have been collected over enough different environmental conditions and spatial scales so that researchers can determine the range of conditions to which the results can be meaningfully extrapolated and applied * the data must measure the important considerations from all the relevant points of view, e.g., physical and biological features, social and economic characteristics * there must be an understanding of the uncertainty of the data (i.e. accuracy and/or precision) * any program designed to provide this information must be based on a stable framework so there is both a continuity to the data collection and a convenient methodology for translating the data in a manner that is most useful (for example, a Geographic Information System) The LTER program contains many of the essential elements needed, particularly a structure for providing long-term measurements, continuity, scientific rigor, a close coupling between ecological patterns and studies of the processes determining these patterns, and an organized framework for collecting, archiving, and making information available. This Special Announcement is to augment the LTER program in a way that enhances these objectives. In Fiscal Year 1994 the LTER Program will provide significant augmentation for two or three LTER projects to facilitate development of "regionalization", "comprehensive site histories", and "increased disciplinary scope". Regionalization is interpreted as the expansion of scientific objectives and analyses to the regional scale through the involvement of investigators from other institutions (academic, governmental, or private) and research sites in the biogeographic area of an extant LTER project. Comprehensive Site History is defined as the development of long temporal data bases and analyses, retrospective as well as prospective, of the biological (including human) and physical environmental character of an extant LTER site for increasing the accuracy of projections into the future. Increased Disciplinary Scope addresses the development of broader collaborations with investigators in disciplines such as social and economic sciences, systematics, population biology, physiological ecology, neuroscience, physical environmental sciences, mathematics and computer science, and science education. Review of requests will specifically emphasize these three areas as well as the changes in project organization and management required by the augmentation. SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: All current LTER projects funded through the Division of Environmental Biology are eligible to submit requests. Identification of scientific questions/hypotheses is left to the discretion of investigators. Review of augmentation proposals will emphasize the evaluation of new questions/hypotheses and the incorporation of additional expertise to address them effectively. Care should be taken to demonstrate clearly how the expanded research builds upon and augments previously supported LTER project themes and objectives. New collaborations and associations of investigators are specifically encouraged as are alliances with other research-supporting agencies. Each project must be prepared as a request for support to commence on the next funding anniversary date of the subject LTER project, and may be proposed to run only for the period of time remaining on the current LTER award. Although a request must involve investigators based at the appropriate LTER site, the Program emphasizes that not all investigators involved must be LTER investigators. Non-LTER investigators are encouraged to contact the appropriate LTER Principal Investigator to discuss participation (see the attached table). Review of the requests will be by an interdisciplinary panel and in accordance with standard NSF merit review guidelines. Budget requests may range up to $500,000 per year for the appropriate time period. Preparation and submission must follow the proposal guidelines given in the "Grant Proposal Guide" (GPG), NSF 94-2. Note especially that a 15-page limit applies to the project description portion of the proposal, including figures and tables. No letters of endorsement or other appendices are allowed. Required NSF forms are found in GPG which is available from: NSF Forms and Publication Unit 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA. 22230 Tel: 703-306-1130, FAX: 703-644-4278 Proposal length, format, and content specifications stated in GPG will be strictly enforced. Ten copies of each request must be transmitted directly to the Long-Term Studies Program, the Division of Environmental Biology, Room 635, NSF, Arlington, VA 22230, postmarked no later than May 1, 1994. Packages should be clearly marked "Do Not Open in Mail Room - Deliver Directly to Addressee." Grants awarded as a result of this announcement (solicitation) are administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP-II, "Federal Demonstration Project General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee organization. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit, phone (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail pubs@nsf (BITNET) or pubs@nsf.gov (Interent). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 88-47, July 1989), for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO is (202) 783-3238 for subscription information. INQUIRIES For inquiries related to this announcement, contact Dr. James T. Callahan, Division of Environmental Biology, at 703-306-1483 (e-mail jcallaha@nsf.gov). LTER PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS H.J. Andrews, Frederick Swanson Jornada, William Schlesinger 503-750-7355 919-684-2453 Arctic Tundra, John Hobbie Kellogg, Philip Robertson 508-548-3705 616-671-2267 Bonanza Creek, Keith Van Cleve Konza Prairie, Alan Knapp 907-474-6927 913-532-7094 Cedar Creek, David Tilman Luquillo, Robert Waide 612-625-9922 809-767-0334 Central Plains, William Lauenroth Niwot Ridge, Timothy Seastedt 303-491-7581 303-492-3302 Coweeta, Judy Meyer North Temperate Lakes, John Magnuson 706-542-3363 608-262-3014 Harvard Forest, David Foster Sevilleta, Bruce Milne 508-724-3302 505-277-5356 Hubbard Brook, Charles Driscoll Virginia Coast Reserve, Bruce Hayden 315-443-3434 804-924-7761 From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Fri Apr 1 09:40:59 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11279; Fri, 1 Apr 94 09:40:55 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10026; 1 Apr 94 9:40 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09487; Fri, 1 Apr 94 06:33:41 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA13391 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Fri, 1 Apr 1994 09:33:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199404011433.AA13391@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: smartin@lternet.edu, jerry@lternet.edu Subject: Special Competition Date: Fri, 01 Apr 94 09:33:04 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: ORf LTER CROSS-SITE COMPARISONS AND SYNTHESES and LTER INTERNATIONALIZATION - ------------------------------------------------------ - ---------------------------------------- Special Competition DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS: May 1, 1994 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION The Long Term Studies Program of the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB), Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) of the National Science Foundation (NSF), in recognition of the need to stimulate broad-scale syntheses and comparisons across multiple sites announces its intent to support proposals for Cross-Site Comparisons and Syntheses. Projects are expected to address: * ecological questions or hypotheses of a long-term nature that can best be addressed through comparative studies or syntheses among long-term ecological research sites (LTER and non-LTER) that possess long-term data sets. In a similar fashion, the Program announces its intent to support proposals for LTER internationalization that specifically: * address the collaboration of U.S. LTER scientists and projects with colleagues in other countries. OBJECTIVES It is clear that managing the earth's resources is not only important but complex. Research designed to provide scientific information on understanding and managing these resources must be based on a stable framework to assure that there is both continuity to the data collection and a convenient methodology for translating the data to the decision-maker in a manner that is most useful. The present LTER program contains the nucleus of a vitally important national effort. The current set of LTER sites can be integrated with other individual research programs in the U.S. to provide a more effective framework through a network of sites and better integrated information bases. Primary objectives are to: * integrate and synthesize information from long-term ecological measurements across appropriate sites in order to help understand the dynamics of ecological systems, provide a baseline against which to measure environmental changes, and evaluate and mitigate the adverse impacts of human activities; * expand the representation of sites involved in comparisons and syntheses and enhance the spatial dimensions of current research projects to represent additional conditions/habitats so that it will be possible to determine the conditions under which lessons learned in one location can be applied to other locations. Collaboration with scientists and research programs in other countries also is expected to expand the knowledge base and number of sites involved in cross-site comparisons and syntheses. For LTER Internationalization efforts, the primary objective is to: * encourage research that specifically involves the collaboration of U.S. LTER scientists and projects with colleagues in other countries. The proposed activity should be a logical extension of an established activity of the counterpart U.S. LTER project. * assist in developing long-term ecological research programs in major ecological or geographic regions world-wide. SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: The specific definition of research topics is left to the initiative of the investigators. Although each request must involve investigators based at at least one LTER site, the Program emphasizes that not all Principal Investigators involved must be LTER investigators. Non-LTER investigators are encouraged to contact the appropriate LTER Principal Investigator for collaboration opportunities (see the attached table). Both types of proposals must be prepared as requests for standard awards of one-to-three-year duration and may not exceed $75,000 as an annual rate of support nor $200,000 for the total project costs. In the case of requests for LTER Internationalization support, proposers are encouraged to document significant cost sharing (in currency or in kind) by the foreign collaborator. Bilateral and multilateral collaborations are equally encouraged. Proposals will be reviewed in accordance with standard NSF merit review guidelines as described in the "Grant Proposal Guide" (GPG), NSF 94-2. The merit review process will center upon the four criteria detailed in GPG (page 13). In addition, special attention will be given to each proposal's plan for building upon research already on-going, achieving broad applicability of the research results, and integrating those results into LTER project and Network data bases. Preparation and submission of proposals must follow the guidelines given in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (NSF 94-2). Note especially that there is a limit of 15 pages for the Project Description section, including text as well as visual materials. No letters of endorsement or other appendices are allowed. Required NSF forms are found in GPG which can be obtained from: NSF Forms and Publication Unit 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA. 22230 Tel: 703-306-1130 FAX: 703-644-4278 Ten copies of the proposal must be transmitted directly to the Long-Term Studies Program, Division of Environmental Biology, Room 635, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 postmarked no later than May 1, 1994. GRANT ADMINISTRATION Grants awarded as a result of this announcement will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP II, "Federal Demonstration Project General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee organization. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit (as referenced above). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 88-47, July 1989), for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO is (202) 783-3238 for subscription information. INQUIRIES For inquiries related to this announcement, contact Dr. James T. Callahan, Division of Environmental Biology, at 703-306-1480 (e-mail jcallaha@nsf.gov). For information regarding electronic submission of proposals, contact the Electronic Proposal Submission Project Leader, Division of Information Systems (DIS) via electronic mail to eps@nsf (BITNET) or eps@nsf.gov (INTERNET) or by telephone at (703) 306-1144, X-4662. LTER PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS H.J. Andrews, OR; Frederick Swanson Jornada, NM; William Schlesinger 503-750-7355 919-684-2453 Arctic Tundra, AK; John Hobbie Kellogg, MI; Philip Robertson 508-548-3705 616-671-2267 Bonanza Creek, AK; Keith Van Cleve Konza Prairie, KS; Alan Knapp 907-474-6927 913-532-7094 Cedar Creek, MN; David Tilman Luquillo, PR; Robert Waide 612-625-9922 809-767-0334 Central Plains, CO; William Lauenroth Niwot Ridge, CO; Timothy Seastedt 303-491-7581 303-492-3302 Coweeta, NC; Judy Meyer No. Temp. Lakes, WI; John Magnuson 706-542-3363 608-262-3014 Harvard Forest, MA; David Foster Sevilleta, NM; Bruce Milne 508-724-3302 505-277-5356 Hubbard Brook, NH; Charles Driscoll Virginia Coast Res., VA; Bruce Hayden 315-443-3434 804-924-7761 From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:adub@lternet.edu Fri Apr 8 11:04:01 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16269; Fri, 8 Apr 94 11:03:59 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20068; 8 Apr 94 11:03 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16168; Fri, 8 Apr 94 08:01:47 PDT Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 08:01:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: Symposium announcement (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 94 23:30:31 EST From: david rapport Final Announcement and Update 1st International Symposium on Ecosystem Health & Medicine: Integrating Science, Policy, Management June 19 - 22, 1994, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Organized by the International Society of Ecosystem Health and Medicine and the University of Guelph The symposium date is fast approaching. This is a final reminder and update. Note that the early registration and abstract submission deadlines have been extended. we're looking forward to seeing you in Ottawa! New Deadlines: Deadline for Contributed Abstracts: May 1, 1994 Deadline for Early Registration: June 1, 1994 (late registration available at the meeting) Additional Speakers: Richard Levins, Harvard University School of Public Health Lynton Caldwell, Indiana University, Public and Environmental Affairs Kathryn Sullivan, Chief Scientist, NOAA Emerging Scientists Forum: Open to Graduate students and PDF's . Contact Bruce Forbes e-mail address; bforbes @ envsci. uoguelph. ca For More Information: see following Aims & Scope: This international symposium aims to develop an integrated science for effective management of regional and global environments. The transdisciplinary field of ecosystem health and medicine bridges the social, health and natural sciences to encourage integrated approaches to assessing, maintaining and improving the health of ecosystems. The symposium program will promote dialogue across disciplines to explore the conceptual and science base for this emerging field, the implications of changes in ecosystem health for human health, and practical applications to policies and programs. The goal is not only to develop the science of ecosystem health assessment, but also to promote healthy public policy and to inspire change. This symposium will attract the participation of professionals in ecosystem science and management, medical and health sciences, environmental ethics, law and policy and ecological economics, for the purpose of exploring common strategies in forging a new integrated ecosystem health practice. Major Themes: Assessing Ecosystem Health The Human Health / Ecosystem Health Interface Linking Science, Ethics and Policy Symposium events: Featured Speakers, including: Henry Kendall, Thomas Lovejoy, Eugene Odum, Francesco di Castri, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, David Ehrenfeld; Richard Levins, Lynton Caldwell, Kathryn Sullivan Transdisciplinary Panels, such as: Indicators of Ecosystem Health; Bioethics and the Environment; Global Environmental Change and human health; Legal and Policy Frameworks. Interactive Workshops, including: social Values and Ecosystem Health Objectives; Trends in Environmental Law; Linking Science, Ethics and Policy. Contributed Display Area Presentations. Special Forum for graduate students and post-docs. Contact Bruce Forbes: e-mail address: bforbes @ envsci.uoguelph.ca Sponsors include: US EPA, Environment Canada, Health Canada, Forestry Canada, US Forestry Service, NOAA, BLM, Parks Canada, Royal Society of Canada FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO REGISTER: Contact: Carol Partland Phone: (519) 824 4120 ext 2967 FAX: (519) 767 0758 Internet: cpartlan@oac.uoguelph.ca Mailing Address: Office of Continuing Education 159 Johnston Hall University of Guelph Guelph Ontario N1G 2W1 Canada Dr. David J. Rapport University of Ottawa Department of Biology 30 Marie Curie Priv. Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1N 6N5 internet: drapport@acadvm1.uottawa.ca Telephone: (613) 567-7672 Fax: (613) 567-1177 ------------------------------END OF MESSAGE--------------- From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@sevilleta.lternet.washington.edu Fri May 6 08:47:51 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13991; Fri, 6 May 94 08:47:50 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04877; 6 May 94 8:47 EDT Received: from ariel.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16795; Fri, 6 May 94 05:44:56 PDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by ariel.unm.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0pzPGe-00001dC; Fri, 6 May 94 06:44 MDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA10402; Fri, 6 May 94 06:44:35 -0600 Message-Id: <9405061244.AA10402@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 6 May 94 06:44:34 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: SCS Status: OR I would like to compile the various types of interactions the sites have had with the SCS. I got the sense from the recent CC meeting that there were good examples of mutual benefit to LTER sites and SCS and I would like to go back to the SCS office here in Washington to see about continuing (or expanding) their interaction with us. You can reply to this message or send brief descriptions to jgosz@nsf.gov thanks jim gosz From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Tue May 10 14:59:51 1994 Received: from [128.143.42.123] (bphmac.evsc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA26174; Tue, 10 May 94 14:59:38 EDT Date: Tue, 10 May 94 14:59:37 EDT Message-Id: <9405101859.AA26174@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> To: jhp7e@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU From: John Vande Castle (by way of bph@amazon.evsc.virginia.edu (Bruce Hayden)) X-Sender: bph@amazon.evsc.virginia.edu Subject: LTER EXEC and CC Notes Status: O Following is a text copy of the discussions during the LTER EXEC and CC meeting this past weekend. Please note that any errors or omissions are mine. Please forward an important corrects to me, and I will update the copy here. A paper copy will be sent to the site PI in the next mailing. -jvc John Vande Castle, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) - Network Office Univ. of Washington, College of Forest Resources, AR-10, Seattle WA 98195 Phone: 206 543-6249 FAX: 206 543-7295 or 685-0790 Email:jvc@LTERnet.edu ___________________________________________________________________________ LTER Executive and Coordinating Committee Meeting Notes 4/20/94-4/23/94 Washington D.C. (Notes by John Vande Castle (JVC), LTER Network Office) LTER Executive Committee Meeting 4/21/94 Jerry Franklin, Fred Swanson, Judy Meyer, Tim Seastedt, John Hobbie, Caroline Bledsoe and John Vande Castle. The first agenda item was discussion of the LTER 2000 Document, and goals for LTER in the next decade. For example, in the future, expansion of intersite comparison needs to be emphasized. Regionalization in the future will include inter-regional comparisons approaching global scales. A focus on more general items of comparative research, regionalization, site history etc. should be considered, rather than specific (pet) projects. Individual scientific projects should not be excluded, but would be in addition to the general outline. The RFP for new proposals should include this. John Hobbie suggested the initial text be expanded by October 1994. This document will be open for modification at the fall CWT-LTER/CC meeting with the ultimate goal for publication in a journal like BioScience. The CWT meeting could be a place for teams to put together specific items. This activity would also act as a "record keeping" and documentation of the history of LTER. Fred Swanson suggested that there be discussion of the formation of a group or committee that tracks the interaction between LTER and other agencies, for example between LTER and NASA, USGS, etc. There needs to be interaction from the sites, as well as a more organized effort from within LTER for these types of interactions. There needs to information flow to and though the network office. Within the LTER Network, there should be specific liaisons to each of the various agencies. If an executive director is included at the Network office, this person could see that these interactions were working. Discussion of the CWT/CC meeting suggested that it be science oriented, but will include reports from committee groups, intersite projects, what augmented sites have proposed, and "intersite" bytes. The first afternoon session of the LTER/CC would be devoted to interaction with NSF. This will be followed by discussion with NSF, and then follow this with discussion within the CC, after NSF representatives leave. The rest of the meeting was devoted towards finalizing the final agenda for the LTER/CC meeting beginning in the afternoon. ___________________________________________________________________________ Agenda LTER/CC Meeting, April 22-24, 1994 4/22/94 2-5pm Meeting with NSF officers: (a) Report from NSF (b) Interaction with NSF on current NSF Initiatives (supplements, RFP's etc.) (c) Interaction with NSF on-line datasets (e.g. Genomic Model, etc.) 5-6 LTER CC discussion of NSF actions/intentions 7p Dinner @ D'Angelo Restaurant 4/23/94 8-10 Governance Issues (a) New Process--coop agreement for Network Office (not grant) (b) Chair--criteria and selection (c) Executive Committee--role and expansion (d) LTER/CC Representatives--permanent or rotating (e) Executive Director--criteria and selection (f) Location of LTER Network Office (g) Expanded Committee Structure (1) Publications (2) Programs and Workshops (3) Others (4) Representation at LTER/CC meetings? 10:30-12 Report on Proposal/supplement prep. activities by sites (60 min) LTER Responsibilities & expectations re on-line datasets (30 min) 12-1:30p Lunch 1:30-3:30 Governance (cont.) 3:30-4:00 Break 4-5:30p LTER Science Agenda Document/Article (60 min) Hobbie All Scientists Meeting Discussion (30 min) Review/Future 6:30p Dinner @ Rio Grande Cafe 4/24/94 8-10 Governance (closure) Science Document (decision on action steps) 10-10:30 Demo @ coffee break: Mosaic Home Pages (LTER, FLED, etc.) (Nottrott) 10:30-12:30 Election of new LTER Exec Members Meeting Schedule (a) CWT/Fall 1994 (Meyer: Agenda formtg. incl. Science Agenda, Committee Reports, Augmentation,Cross-Site proposals) Regionalization Document (Hayden) NASA Collaboration (Vande Castle) International Activities (Franklin) Network of Networks and All-Site Bibliography (Bledsoe) LMER Report (Hobbie) Vote of Appreciation (for Adrienne Whitener) _________________________________________________________________________ LTER COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES Attending: Mary Clutter, Tom Callahan, James Gosz, Bob Wharton, David Tilman, Charles Driscol, David Foster, Robin Ross, Josh Schimel, John Hobbie, John Magnuson, Fred Swanson, Judy Meyer, Tim Seastedt, Kay Gross, William Schlesinger, Jerry Franklin, John Vande Castle, Bruce Hayden, Robert Waide, Cheryl Dybas, Roger Hanson, Indy Burke, Alan Knapp, Bruce Milne. (NSF representatives present from 2:00 to 5:00) Friday - April 22 2:00-6:20 The LTER Coordinating Committee (CC) meeting commenced with information from the National Science Foundation and discussion with the LTER/CC Tom Callahan initiated discussion by pointing out that the LTER Network Office grant is up for renewal on Feb 1 1995. Along with the planned changes in LTER This could potentially be a cooperative agreement between LTER and NSF. This would be in submission of a formal proposal, followed by a document with agreement on what the Network Office will do and what NSF will do. Part of this would be a site review. Tom suggested a site review of the Network Office before the LTER Network Data Managers meeting in September of 1994. JVC and Jerry should see how the NSF STC and other cooperative agreements at the University of Washington have been arranged for background on how best to implement a cooperative agreement. Current Special Competitions: Cross-site syntheses, regionalization and internationalization, and LTER site augmentation. Eleven sites showed that they would be submitting augmentation proposals. Kay Gross asked about what will be included in the augmentation, in the form of increased support for existing site work. Tom suggested that these types of activities need to be part of the augmentation proposals. The augmentations will be in the form of supplemental funding to existing LTER grants. There were 30 cross site proposals planned for submission as indicated by show of hands by the CC members. LTER Project reviews will include: MCM, BNZ, ARC, KBS, HBR, and NWT. Tom suggested that the LTER Network use its resources to facilitate the review process and for other sites to help the sites under review. Tom requested names of people suitable for panel review of the augmentation and cross-site proposals. There was some discussion that add-hoc review should be included and that reviewers need background information on what the history of the activity has been. Mary Clutter discussed the importance of the new international LTER efforts. Many countries are looking to the United States for leadership in these efforts. Jerry mentioned plans to get some type of congressional briefing regarding LTER activities. For example a retreat or "tour" of VCR would be possible. This could be done during a recess period. Mary suggested that LTER could sponsor a congressional visit. This could include a visit to the Arctic or Antarctic sites. Mary also suggested there be a presentation to the National Science Board - for FY95. Jim Gosz discussed the importance of increased visibility for future and increased funding: new activities, for instance regarding interaction with K-12 education. As part of this, two pre- proposals were circulated for student and teacher interaction with LTER sites. These were submitted to ascertain initial interests for these activities. Kay Gross and Josh Schimel pointed out the time commitment involved in this type of activity by site personnel. The "Proposal A" was viewed best since it involved a teacher/student team, having the teacher manage the education and allow the teacher to spread the experience back to other students. Jim mentioned that in the president's current budget plans, funding for NSF was enhanced for global change, and high performance computing and communication. Total R+D funding is planned as essentially flat, but there would be some shift of defense R+D funding to other groups, including NSF (also NASA, EPA etc.). Funding for LTER sites is proceeding along agreed forms of first providing funding for sites to better do existing and expanded research, to enhance sites to Center level funding, and last to add more sites as funding comes available. Supplemental funding was discussed as positive for all sites who submitted, within some limitations. Soil Conservation Service interaction, where the SCS has come and performed a soil characterization was also seen very positive, and continued interaction was encouraged Tom suggested there be an on-line calendar of upcoming events related to LTER activities be established (by the Network Office). The calendar should be sent out on a regular and frequent basis via Email to PI@LTERnet.edu. This calendar of the LTER Bulletin and Newsletter is good, but an Email psoting could be more frequent. Tom also suggested that 3 key NSF people be included in the PI@LTERnet.edu Email group. NSF is also interested in any information they can use as examples ongoing research, that would be interesting to other groups. Part of this request is for a current need of information on technology transfer. Information from the sites and Network Office can be sent to NSF at: CDybas@nsf.gov. Cheryl will send information such as press releases, etc. to PI@lternet.edu Jim Gosz pointed out that sites must realize that data from the site research be made available on line. There was much discussion on how to get this information together. Jim Gosz pointed out that the CC had made a quantum leap in now deciding to getting data made more available. The discussion centered on having the Network Office act as a lead on organizing this activity, and have it as a point of activity for the LTER Data management group. Although this initial discussion indicated that the mechanism would not be difficult, later realization of the need for proper documentation, publication reference and perhaps hierarchical access restrictions suggested this activity proceed with caution (see notes on later discussion). An invited speaker by NSF, Dennis Helso of USGS - National Water Quality Assessment (NWQA) presented a short briefing regarding NWQA activities. Funding for the program was started in 1991, more sites added in 1994. The activities of the program are staggered every three years. By stretching the sampling period of the entire network to three years NWQA can cover three times the area of an annual sampling program. The research is focused in part on nutrient/contaminant loading to watersheds. There is also a need to use reference sites for comparison - thus a potential linkage for LTER activities. Jerry gave background on the International LTER networking activities. The report from the initial meeting last September in Estes Park is in final publication stages by the Network Office. A follow-up meeting in Rothemstadt is planned following the August 1994 INTECOL meeting in the UK. As part of this, an assessment of the electronic networking capabilities will be made by members of the LTER Connectivity Committee. Tom said that proposals for international collaborations, for instance to NSF-INT would have a good chance for funding. The late afternoon session included general discussion regarding the information NSF provided and other concerns at the sites: John Hobbie brought up the issue of the equity of the sites. NSF should be reminded that all the sites should be given the opportunity, thus the need for continued funding opportunities next year. Josh Schimel discussed the need to recognize the need for proper funding to cover LTER research as mentioned in the 10-year review document. David Tilman suggested that LTER as a network should push to spread LTER like funds out to the other ecological research groups. This is important regarding non-LTER funding, and LTER being seen as a money-rich program. Indy Burke pointed out the importance of ad-hoc reviews for proper review, as well as the perception of the review process for LTER funding. Judy Meyer bought up the issue of cross-site funding, and its importance, especially to outside groups not currently associated with LTER. Robert Wharton pointed out that the Antarctic sites have not been able to compete for supplemental funds, and OPP needs to coordinate so that these two sites do not fall behind. Robin Ross mentioned that funds have been hard to find even for data management activities by the Antarctic sites. She indicated that these sites might be able to acquire funds by submitting cross-site proposals. David Foster pointed out the importance of making sure the reviewers have the proper background, thus the need for proper ad-hoc reviewers. Charles Driscol pointed out the timing issue regarding the RFP's - It would be better if the RFP's were better coordinated and had better timing. William Schlesinger agreed with what NSF had presented, and was encouraged. Kay Gross pointed out the importance to include funding for people to do the work. Equipment by itself cannot be funded. Alan Knapp was also pleased with what NSF had presented, and thought the information presented by NSF was positive. Robert Waide said that information regarding the result of student funding needs to be transmitted by NSF more rapidly. Supplemental funding seems to have gotten more competitive. Information of what should be included in the proposals regarding augmentation needs to be more clear. He also said that on-line data was another back- door activity, not originally present in grant conditions by NSF. Tim Seastedt pointed out individual items that can be brought up to needed levels. Also that the importance of PR to the public and press, such as that emphasized by NSF representatives. John Magnuson pointed out the importance of the support and interaction that NSF gives to the LTER program. Reviewers need have a very broad background, and not be narrowly focused to be able to assess all the activities of site augmentation proposals. He also mentioned that late REU funding can be held until the following year since timing of the funding for this might not be in sync with the needs for offers to students. Bruce Milne discussed the proliferation of opportunities does cause some problem on the perception of clear goals of the LTER site program. He suggested that some thought be made to optimize the activity of the Network. Not all sites should be doing the same activities. Specialists to handle "outside" activities should be brought in as part of the research, rather than having existing researchers change activities because of the demands of the LTER program. ____________________________________________________________________________ Saturday, April 23 1994 LTER Future Governance Discussion: Background for the day's discussions was based on the document produced from the LTER Executive Committee meeting which was distributed to each site PI prior to the meeting. The updated LTER Governance document, as modified by these discussions will be distributed to LTER principal investigators by the Network Office. Jerry Franklin discussed the procedures with NSF for future operation of the LTER Network Office, with a change to a cooperative agreement for tasks performed by the Network Office. Jerry polled the CC for reactions: All sites agreed with the plan for future operations. Kay Gross mentioned that this allows more accounting for activities by NSF on the operations. John Magnuson asked how the cooperative agreement would be judged, and Jerry said that the current activities and products that are produced will continue to be the reference. Jerry mentioned the importance of realizing the scale of the program that LTER is moving toward, with the Network Office providing the infrastructure for a program approaching $20M. David Tilman brought up the issue of knowing what was in the proposal, and was assured that a review of what was to be submitted to NSF be a part of the fall CC meeting in CWT. The CC indicated a consensus, and further polling site representatives was not needed. Discussion of the future Chair of LTER opened with mention of what was included in the background information generated prior to, and resulting from the previous LTER Executive meeting. The function of the LTER Chair was discussed, and included the duties as head of the Exec, CC, and leader of initiatives of the Network etc. The personal goals and satisfaction, and also what motivates people to act as chair was also discussed. Jerry mention that this was one of the reasons the EXEC wanted this as a position that did not require a full time position, and would have the executive director of the Network office and perhaps other help, such as a post- doc would be included in the Network Office. Bruce Hayden pointed out that arrangement be quite flexible to suit whatever was needed for the best person for the position. William Schlesinger suggested that an "outside" person be added to the selection committee, to provide a wider perspective to the selection, and that the person selected should be committed to, and not overcommitted to other projects. Jerry said that a person from the 10 Year review committee or others suggested, would be included. Judy Meyer raised the issue that a site PI might not also be the LTER Chair. Discussion suggested that the Chair should probably not also act as a site PI. David Foster asked about the view that support for the Network Office and Chair include research activities, and discussion mentioned that research needs to be a part of the activities. The procedure to select a chair was discussed including if this should be fully advertised. The selection was decided to not limit the selection to an LTER PI, but allow for any outside person familiar with the operation of LTER. The credentials of the person or persons selected will be circulated. The CC agreed unanimously that the selection should proceed as planned with selection at the fall CC meeting. The vote will be by secret ballot. Expansion of the LTER Executive committee was discussed as a method to have wider involvement of the site PI's in operations, with the EXEC acting to perform much of the initial work. It was decided to increase the EXEC members to 5 people, and to have the Chair act as non-voting member. Jerry mentioned that the structure of the LTER/CC is proposed to allow for both closed and more open meetings. It was recommended that there be a primary contact, but it be open to flexibility. The importance of continuity was discussed, and the need that the CC representative be able to speak for the site. This is especially important for the "limited" meetings. It was agreed that there be a regular site representative with a commitment for a three year period with the recognition that this be flexible for sites who are able to represent the site in a team framework. Discussion of the Executive director of the Network Office: The individual will need to reside wherever the Network Office is located. The person needs to be committed to the position as a career, as a science advocate. The selection of this person will be determined primarily with interaction of the new chair, and selection proceed once the chair is selected. The concept of having an Executive director who will interact directly with the Chair was accepted by the CC, although there was further discussion that an established scientist may need to be hired at the faculty level, and the potential to move the office could possess a problem for that individual. Much discussion centered on operations of the Network Office activities. Better involvement of the CC in the cooperative agreement is planned, beginning with discussions at the September CC meeting. The location of the network office followed discussion of information in the EXEC document. The need to be flexible was important, that the Office remain in Seattle for the near future, with review as needed, on a one to two year basis, as other changes in structure of LTER occur. The CC agreed that the Office remain for the near future. LTER/CC discussion of changing the committee structure, included expansion of committee structure to cover issues within LTER. Specific recommendations were made for a committee to manage issues of syntheses and common measurements be included. Indy Burke suggested that the committees be science based. Charles Driscol emphasized the need for a common measurement approach. It was suggested that the "program" committee be altered to a "Syntheses" committee, with an initial charge is to develop a MMP (minimum measurement program). Key Gross asked that the MMP be linked to the science program. The diversity of the individual programs needs to be included. Discussion suggested that this should include seven people, with initial membership by Charles Driscol, Bob Wharton, Kay Gross, and Josh Schimel. The financial needs of these groups will need to be included, and their activities in the Network Office cooperative agreement. Discussion of All Scientists meeting activities emphasized the support and need for this meeting to continue on a three year basis. Assilimar was suggested as a location for September of 1996. The next meeting will be needed for Assilimar for perhaps 1000 people. JVC will check that this will be appropriate, available and can handle up to 1000 people. LTER Science Agenda: Discussion was based on the Long-Term Research Agenda document which built on the original LTER 2000 program initially submitted to NSF. The science agenda was formulated by John Hobbie who will coordinate the activity, for five areas of focus, and compile an document for the September LTER/CC meeting. A plan for publication will proceed as an article in BioScience, perhaps as part of a special issue. Discussion continued to the regionalization activity by Bruce Hayden, in producing an electronic document. Currently there are five sites that have the on-line document ready, and part of the "Mosaic", World Wide Web. The document includes color imagery that is difficult and expensive to publish in other forms. Discussion about concerns included what each site considers in regional research, and the fact that this is something under construction. The implications and significance were noted for future work and information access, potential for a hard-copy run and even to congressional briefings. Kay Gross lead discussion of acquisition, reconstruction and access of long-term datasets. Included in this is the ability to include information to document past datasets. The initiative is to find and archive important long-term datasets, especially of "orphaned" or "at risk" datasets. The ESA committee working on this activity will be submitting a report by the Snowbird ESA meeting. JVC gave a background on the LTER/NASA interaction regarding Landsat data acquisition and sun photometer work. The "demonstrat" data access and analysis program was presented, showing the basic functions of how to browse the real-time and archived data, generate information on atmospheric aerosol and water vapor concentration, and derive corrections for satellite sensors. With the installation of a sun photometer, an LTER site becomes a reference source for calibration of satellite data. There was much concern about the NASA interaction involving Warren Cohen, and knowing what the status of the landscape assessment program is. Concern centered on the lack of information and what the status of the proposal is. The committee suggested that Warren provide information to the LTER/CC within the next ten days as to what was being doing and the status of this proposal. Jerry provided background on the International LTER Networking meeting held at Estes Park. NSF has provided funding for assessment of electronic networking connections, database assessment and to demonstrate potentials for network activities. Kay Gross suggested that a letter of support from Jerry be included by sites that are representing LTER activities. The international networking activity will continue with the upcoming meeting in the UK. Caroline Bledsoe gave background on the new LTER bibliographic database that is now online on the LTERnet data server accessible by gopher and mosaic server, which has been developed by herself, Harvey Chin and Rudolf Nottrott. John Hobbie gave background on the status of the LMER program. There is now a competition for renewal and new sites. There were seventeen proposals including four of the five exisiting sites, with about seven to be funded. Judy suggested that Network-wide information be compiled on overhead rates etc. that have been negotiated. JVC will compile the material, compiling the list anonymously: one list of institutions involved, and a second, but not linked list, of the overhead rates negotiated, and how much if any is redistributed back to the program. This information will be distributed with a letter from Jerry to the site PI group for information. The information made available for distribution within LTER itself rather than for general distribution. Discussion of the collecting and distributing information on the organizational structure used for management of the sites was suggested. It was decided to make this a key point of the VCR meeting in a year. The CC discussed extensively the need to put LTER data on-line. Bruce Hayden proposed that a model be developed by the data management group to put on-line a complete metadata structure and data itself as well as attribution (whose data, who put it on-line). This motion was voted unanonamous. Jerry also got a commitment from the entire CC to get one dataset online by the end of the year after much discussion. The final vote for two new EXEC members and Kay Gross and Bruce Hayden were elected by majority votes. There was a short roundtable for the sites to exchange information on the basic elements of site augmentation proposals that they were planning to submit. Rudolf Nottrott gave a brief presentation of the on-line Mosaic information server of the LTER Network including its capabilities of LTER bibliographic searches (from work of Caroline Bledsoe and Harvey Chin), access to on-line site information, as well as display of the LTER electronic volumes, such as the LTER Regionalization document under preparation by Bruce Hayden. The LTER/CC meeting was adjourned late in the day Saturday, completing the agenda. _________________________END OF DOCUMENT_________________________________ From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue May 10 21:37:16 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27439; Tue, 10 May 94 21:37:14 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19074; 10 May 94 21:37 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20541; Tue, 10 May 94 18:35:09 PDT Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 18:35:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Bioscience item To: PI@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI, the September issue of BioScience will carry an item by Cheryl Dybas, NSF Legislative Affairs, on canopy research which derives from the current issue of the Network News. For your future reference, this is a good example of how a single news item can sometimes receive surprisingly broad coverage. In this case, it started with a notice sent by Nalini Nadkarni to site PIs. I picked it up for the newsletter and passed it on before the newsletter was out to Cheryl at NSF. She picked it up for the NSF Tip Sheet which goes out to targeted journals, magazines and newspapers, and it caught the eye of BioScience editors. Please continue to send me or Cheryl news on any new and interesting experiments, collaborations, and research results that we can highlight to get the word out to the larger community. Thanks! From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Wed May 11 12:09:43 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA29265; Wed, 11 May 94 12:09:42 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25720; 11 May 94 12:09 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22464; Wed, 11 May 94 09:01:28 PDT Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 09:01:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Cheryl Dybas/NSF Contact Info To: PI@lternet.washington.edu Cc: cDybas@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: When you do have site news items that you would like to send directly to Cheryl Dybas at NSF for wider distribution or for development as stories, you can do so via e-mail. Cheryl is in the LTER database, so her address is: cDybas@LTERnet.edu (or cDybas@nsf.gov). Her phone, fax and address follow. Cheryl Dybas Senior Science Writer Legislative Affairs, Room 1245 National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22230 Ph: 703-306-1070 Fax: 703-306-0159 =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 18:35:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: PI@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Bioscience item FYI, the September issue of BioScience will carry an item by Cheryl Dybas, NSF Legislative Affairs, on canopy research which derives from the current issue of the Network News. For your future reference, this is a good example of how a single news item can sometimes receive surprisingly broad coverage. In this case, it started with a notice sent by Nalini Nadkarni to site PIs. I picked it up for the newsletter and passed it on before the newsletter was out to Cheryl at NSF. She picked it up for the NSF Tip Sheet which goes out to targeted journals, magazines and newspapers, and it caught the eye of BioScience editors. Please continue to send me or Cheryl news on any new and interesting experiments, collaborations, and research results that we can highlight to get the word out to the larger community. Thanks! From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Sat May 14 10:57:38 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06438; Sat, 14 May 94 10:57:36 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07882; 14 May 94 10:57 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15616; Sat, 14 May 94 07:54:59 PDT Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA24357 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Sat, 14 May 1994 10:54:47 -0400 Message-Id: <199405141454.AA24357@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu, AERC@lternet.edu Cc: jerry@lternet.edu, smartin@lternet.edu Subject: NSF needs help! Date: Sat, 14 May 94 10:54:45 EDT From: "James R. Gosz" Status: ORS Increases for the NSF 1995 budget are at risk. You can help and now is the time. See in particular the last paragraph. jim Appropriations Process Underway May 12, 1994 The House Appropriations Committee meets today to give its final approval to figures instrumental in determining the federal budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1. The outlook for space station funding remains unclear -- although it could be worse. The "college of cardinals," as they are often referred to on Capitol Hill, met yesterday to carve up the $508.65 billion discretionary spending budget for fiscal year 1995. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wisconsin) and the thirteen appropriations subcommittee chairmen gave preliminary approval to figures which they formally vote on today. Indicative of the difficulties facing the committee is the fact that next year's figure has declined from this year's $510.07 billion. The space station could have met an early death if the Appropriations Committee had given the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee a less-than-generous amount of money for what are called "outlays." Outlays are the amount of money which the government actually spends in a fiscal year, which includes bills coming due for commitments made in a previous year. VA, HUD subcommittee chairman Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) said he needed $73.3 billion in outlays in order to assure continued space station funding. He got just a bit less than $73 billion. Obey said of the $73 billion: "These numbers don't rule out the space station, and they don't guarantee it." An aide to Stokes said that they could fund the station with that figure, although left unsaid is where the subcommittee would cut the other $350 million in outlays for this year. Pressure is continuing to mount on the subcommittee to assure adequate funding for the VA and HUD. Also bearing on the space station's future is how much NASA receives for both budget authority (money for FY 1995 and beyond) and for outlays. As reported in FYI #63, House science committee chairman George Brown (D-California) was pressuring the appropriations subcommittee to give NASA a $14.3 billion budget for next year. He is backing away from that figure a bit. "It doesn't have to be $14.3 billion," Brown is now saying; "We're within $300 million to $400 million of a satisfactory outcome to this thing.... There are wonders that can be done." Brown said he would be satisfied with around a $14 billion budget for NASA. This does not ensure that the space station is home free. Still a problem is securing enough votes to defeat any floor amendment to terminate the station. The Ranking Republican on the science committee, Bob Walker (Pennsylvania), citing concerns about the budget and Russian participation, said, "I've told the administration don't expect me to deliver 75 percent of the Republicans. We'll be lucky if we get 50 percent." In other areas of the budget, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee received a discretionary spending budget of $20.37 billion, down from $21.88 billion this year. Subcommittee chairman Tom Bevill (D-Alabama) warned that there would be "No new starts. That is the way it's looking right now," for water projects. There is no early indication of the outlook for the Department of Energy's science programs. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is funded by the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee. Here the news is better. This subcommittee's allocation rose from $22.95 billion this year to $26.06 billion for next year. NIST and anti-crime programs are in for sizeable increases for next year, prompting one subcommittee member to predict, "We are going to have to make substantial cuts in existing programs." The National Science Foundation is funded through the VA/HUD subcommittee. It is believed that the House appropriations subcommittee will markup its bill the week of June 6, followed by Senator Barbara Mikulski's (D-Maryland) subcommittee during the week of July 16. It is being reemphasized that letters to Stokes and Mikulski from their colleagues will play an important role in determining how their subcommittees allocate department and agency budgets. These letters are, in turn, a reflection of the mail which representatives and senators receive in the next few crucial weeks from their constituents. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Sat May 14 10:59:17 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06443; Sat, 14 May 94 10:59:15 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08019; 14 May 94 10:59 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15636; Sat, 14 May 94 07:57:21 PDT Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA17005 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Sat, 14 May 1994 10:57:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199405141457.AA17005@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu, AERC@lternet.edu Cc: jerry@lternet.edu, smartin@lternet.edu Subject: reference material Date: Sat, 14 May 94 10:57:08 EDT From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Communicating With Congress The following information is based on the AIP brochure, "Communicating with Congress." For a copy of this brochure, send a self-addressed, stamped (29 cents) long business envelope to: AIP, Government and Institutional Relations, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, Maryland 20740-3843. WRITING TO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS: Limit the letter to one page, and usually one subject. The letter must be legible. Organize your letter into three distinct paragraphs: In the first paragraph: State your reason for writing Establish your "credentials" In the second paragraph: State your position Use facts to back up your position Describe the legislation's impact on you Note the bill number (H.R. xx or S. xx) when appropriate The final paragraph asks for some type of action. Recommended address format: The Honorable___________ United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator__________: The Honorable __________ United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative___________: Send your letter in care of the relevant committee when you are writing to a Member of Congress who does not represent your district or state. See FYIs #11 and 12 for selected appropriations subcommittee rosters. MEETING WITH A MEMBER OF CONGRESS: Make your appointment at least 3-4 weeks in advance Capitol switchboard telephone number: 202-224-3121 Consider arranging a meeting in the state or district office Be prepared Research the issue Cite the bill number and title of any legislation involved Research the background and interests of your Member of Congress Keep to the point of your visit Choose a small number of issues Make your case early in the visit Select one spokesperson for group meetings Try to include at least one constituent of the Member Plan your presentation Expect your meeting to last about 15 minutes Congressional aides These staff members are dedicated and influential Staff aides often draft key components of legislation Staff aides frequently meet with constituents Leave a one-page summary End your appointment on time Thank the legislator or aide Follow up with a thank you letter Take the opportunity to stress the key points of your visit Offer to provide assistance From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jgosz@nsf.gov Sat May 14 11:06:26 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06450; Sat, 14 May 94 11:06:24 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08518; 14 May 94 11:06 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15645; Sat, 14 May 94 08:03:03 PDT Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA18968 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Sat, 14 May 1994 11:02:51 -0400 Message-Id: <199405141502.AA18968@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu, AERC@lternet.edu Cc: jerry@lternet.edu, smartin@lternet.edu Subject: Committee members Date: Sat, 14 May 94 11:02:50 EDT From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Rep. Louis Stokes (D-OH), Chairman Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) Rep. Jim Chapman (D-TX) Rep. Dean Gallo (R-NJ) Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Rep. Esteban Torres (D-CA) Rep. Ray Thornton (D-AR) Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Chair Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Sen. Chris Bond (R-MO) Sen. Robert Kerrey (D-NE) Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue May 17 16:17:21 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17899; Tue, 17 May 94 16:17:20 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16146; 17 May 94 16:17 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02155; Tue, 17 May 94 13:12:07 PDT Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 13:12:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: TFA Study To: PI@lternet.edu Cc: gLikens@lternet.washington.edu, tCallahan@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI, Cheryl Dybas at NSF tells me that she's getting press calls about the TFA Adsorption in LTER Soils study featured in the current newsletter. Again, she picked the item up from the Network News for the tip sheet she sends out to journals and newspapers. It looks like this will continue to be a good way to get information on LTER work out to a wider audience. =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jerry@lternet.edu Thu May 19 08:59:05 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25036; Thu, 19 May 94 08:59:02 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03815; 19 May 94 8:59 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12646; Thu, 19 May 94 05:55:48 PDT Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 05:55:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Franklin Subject: Re: TFA Study To: Stephanie Martin Cc: PI@lternet.edu, gLikens@lternet.washington.edu, tCallahan@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Great, Stephanie! Jerry From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:beth@sparc.ecology.uga.edu Mon May 23 09:43:49 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09118; Mon, 23 May 94 09:43:47 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02276; 23 May 94 9:43 EDT Received: from sparc.ecology.uga.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06519; Mon, 23 May 94 06:38:40 PDT Received: from [128.192.18.63] (cwt63.ecology.uga.edu) by sparc.ecology.uga.edu (4.1/25-eef) id AA02939; Mon, 23 May 94 09:44:23 EDT Date: Mon, 23 May 94 09:44:23 EDT Message-Id: <9405231344.AA02939@sparc.ecology.uga.edu> From: Beth O'Grady Reply-To: Beth O'Grady To: pi@lternet.edu, agordon@evbhort.uoguelph.ca, jbrunt@sevilleta.unm.edu, dgreenland@lternet.edu Cc: awhitener@lternet.edu Subject: Oct.Exec./CC meetings at Coweeta Status: OR Below is a list of Representatives who have notified us they are planning to attend the October CC meeting at Coweeta. We appreciate the early responses. It is now time to phone in your credit card guarantees to the motel. We are under deadlines from the motel to finalize our plans because October is a peak tourist month and lodging in the area is scarce. You may still cancel or change names on rooms, but the guarantees will allow us to hold the rooms for the group. Phone your reservation to: Quality Inn, 706/746-5373. State that you are with the University of Georgia LTER meetings. The rate is $69 per room, and $89 if you plan to stay through a weekend night. The Network Office will pay travel, food, and lodging expenses for one rep per site plus Exec. Committee members. If your site is not represented, you need to contact me ASAP. Thanks!--Beth This is a tentative schedule: 19 Oct., Wed. 9:00AM Executive Committee meeting, Coweeta 1:00PM Coordinating Committee meeting, Quality Inn conference room 5:00 Social, Quality Inn 20 Oct., Thurs. 9:00AM Meetings, Quality Inn Conference room 5:00PM Barbecue, Kelly Park 21 Oct., Fri. 9:00AM Field trip to Coweeta 1:00 Leave for airports SITES REPRESENTATIVES Andrew Fred Swanson, Stan Gregory Arctic Bonanza Creek Cedar Creek Central Plains Coweeta Judy Meyer Harvard Forest David Foster, + 1 Rep. Hubbard Brook Jornada Wm. Schlesinger Kellog Konza Alan Knapp, John Blair Luquillo Robert Waide McMurdo Niwot Tim Seastedt, + 1 Rep. North Temp.Lakes 2 Reps. Palmer Station Sevilleta Virginia Coast Res. Bruce Hayden, John Porter NETWORK OFFICE Jerry Franklin Rudolph Notrott John Vande Castle Caroline Bledsoe Harvey Chinn NSF James Gosz MISCELLANEOUS Josh Greenberg (grad student rep.) James Brunt (data mgt. committee chair) David Greenland (climate) Andrew Gordon (Ontario) Beth O'Grady, Coweeta LTER Site Institute of Ecology 711 BioSciences Bldg. University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-2602 PHONE 706/542-3363 FAX 706/542-3344 email beth@sparc.ecology.uga.edu Beth O'Grady, Coweeta LTER Site Institute of Ecology 711 BioSciences Bldg. University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-2602 PHONE 706/542-3363 FAX 706/542-3344 email beth@sparc.ecology.uga.edu From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:dhelsel@usgs.gov Tue May 31 13:41:46 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21010; Tue, 31 May 94 13:41:44 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05469; 31 May 94 13:41 EDT Received: from srv1rvares.er.usgs.GOV by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04174; Tue, 31 May 94 10:37:29 PDT Received: from [130.11.50.52] (dhelqvarsa [130.11.50.52]) by srv1rvares.er.usgs.GOV (8.6.7/8.6.4) with SMTP id RAA02041 for ; Tue, 31 May 1994 17:37:43 GMT Message-Id: <199405311737.RAA02041@srv1rvares.er.usgs.GOV> Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 13:36:35 -0500 To: pi@lternet.edu From: Dennis Helsel X-Sender: dhelsel@srv1rvares Status: OR I spoke about the NAWQA program of the USGS at your recent meeting in Arlington, VA. Although our national coordinators are in contact, I believe there would be added beneficial to both LTER and NAWQA if individual scientists were also speaking with one another. To get that started, I'd like to get location information on your LTER site. I'll then get that plotted along with our NAWQA site maps to determine which sites are located within or near one of the 60 large NAWQA study units. I would appreciate getting the name of the appropriate contact person on your staff by email. They could then send either a polygon or point coverage of latitude/longitude for the watershed you are studying to our GIS specialist, Kerie Hitt (kjhitt@usgs.gov). Kerie will work with them on formats, etc. We will put the map together, and return to each of you either the national map (probably overkill) or the names and locations of all NAWQA studies in your vicinity. Thanks in advance for your help. Either email (preferred) or call me (703 - 648 -5713) if you have any questions. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Tue Jun 7 13:38:16 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12554; Tue, 7 Jun 94 13:38:12 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06066; 7 Jun 94 13:38 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18845; Tue, 7 Jun 94 10:33:00 PDT Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 10:33:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Hungary/CEDAR-new Internet resource/Int'l funding To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I received this and the following messages from Jim Gosz: Subject: Re: Announcing New Environmental Gopher In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Jun 94 19:24:09 -0100." <199406021727.AA34908@note1.nsf.gov> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 94 11:11:40 EDT From: "Bonnie H. Thompson" International Programs, NSF . . . Requested from Dianna Freckman a list of those Hungarian institutions which must be considered in an overall network plan. These Steve Goldstein will discuss with his Eastern Europe contacts who are responsible for long-term planning of national systems. I also described NSF's interest in working with neighboring countries in the near-term. Steve says he has worked with GEO on related matters for Global change activities and welcomes working with LTERs. He immediately thought of a couple of new data sources that may be of interest of US LTER researchers since they are so oriented toward electronic networking. I am attaching his message to this note for you reference; please send it on to others if you feel it is newsworthy. Also Steve mentioned that there has been a recent NATO message about funds for equipment purchase (for EE sites) if working with US (NATO nations) for work in certain topics ...which includes environment! So...at minimum, Steve Goldstein will be a helpful source of info and advice. We need to think of how to channel things. In her brief report to me, yesterday, Dianna says that the Fall meeting to be held in Hungary as the final stage has been postponed until February 1995. My guess is that this responds to the Hungarian's lack of funds in 1994. They get budgets on a calendar year basis and will have new monies in 1995 and will have budget for the meeting. Goldstein's message about a data base follows: Comments: Resent-From: Fabio Metitieri From: Fabio Metitieri Subject: Announcing New Environmental Gopher X-To: newnir-l@ITOCSIVM.CSI.IT To: Multiple recipients of list NEWNIR-L Resent-To: Bonnie Thompson Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 94 13:54:18 EDT Resent-From: "Steve Goldstein Ph +1-703-306-1949" - - ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In announcing CEDAR's environmental gopher to the general public, the staff would like to take this opportunity to extend its thanks for the encouragement and technical support provided by the following individuals: Czeslaw Jan Grycz and Darek Milewski The Wladyslaw Poniecki Charitable Foundation, Inc. Barbara Rodes World Wildlife Fund - US Gerard Cunningham UNEP Infoterra/PAC ****************** Special thanks to: Dr. Konrad Zirm Austrian Federal Ministry for Environment, Youth and Family Dr. Werner Pillmann The International Society for Environmental Protection *************************************************************************** CEDAR is happy to make available to the public a Gopher server dedicated to environmental information. Host: pan.cedar.univie.ac.at Port: 70 The server is still under development; please report problems or suggestions to system-info@pan.cedar.univie.ac.at. Update announcements will be made periodically to notify the public of new data sets added to the system. Information currently available from the Gopher includes: 2. Austrian Federal Ministry for Environment, Youth and Family/ Austrian Environmental Information Act. 3. United Nations Environment Programme: Infoterra/ About INFOTERRA. Search the Infoterra International Experts Database Search for Infoterra National Focal Points by country UNEP Infoterra Thesaurus of Environmental Terms. 4. The Central and Eastern European EcoDirectory Project/ Welcome to the EcoDirectory - ReadMe About the EcoDirectory Project Browse the CEE Environmental Libraries Database (entries)/ Search the CEE Environmental Libraries Database How to search the EcoDirectory by country. >> Poniecki Foundation Gopher/ How to Submit Changes to this Gopher Database 7. Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe/ The Bulletin/ 1. CEDAR/ General Information about CEDAR Available Publications from ISEP. Access to Databases/ Search CEED, the CEE Environmental Experts Database Search ERIN (Environmentally Relevant INformation) Newsletters/ The Gopher will also provide links to environmental, UN and other systems. Point your Gopher software to: pan.cedar.univie.ac.at, port 70 We hope you find the information on our server useful. Sincerely, The CEDAR Staff - - -- Joerg Findeisen find@cedar.univie.ac.at Central European Environmental Data Request Facility CEDAR - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message From @lternet.lternet.washington.edu:kjhitt@qvarsa.er.usgs.gov Fri Jun 10 12:36:48 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07700; Fri, 10 Jun 94 12:36:47 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22602; 10 Jun 94 12:36 EDT Received: from QVARSA.er.usgs.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02345; Fri, 10 Jun 94 09:34:10 PDT Received: by EDOC Distributor (Rev. 2.2/DIS-II) on srv2rvares.er.usgs.gov; Fri, 10 Jun 1994 12:33:47 -0400 Message-Id: Comments: Direct questions on this SMTP header to $edoc.help@qvarsa.er.usgs.gov Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 12:33:32 -0400 From: "Kerie J. Hitt" To: pi@lternet.edu, jgosz@nsf.gov, smartin@lternet.washington.edu Subject: LTER/NAWQA map Status: OR ----- Map of LTER sites and USGS NAWQA study units available ----- As suggested by Dennis Helsel, I have prepared a quick map of LTER sites and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) study units so that we can determine which LTER sites are located within NAWQA study units. I used the point location coordinates of LTER sites given in the 1990 Long-Term Ecological Research network core data set catalog. If more accurate coordinates or area boundaries are available, they can be incorporated into the map later. The map is available as a GIF file from anonymous ftp on 130.11.51.209. The file is called lter.gif and is located in the subdirectory called pub. If other file formats or other ways of distributing the file are needed, please let me know. My phone number is 703/648-6854 and my email address is kjhitt@usgs.gov. ---Kerie Hitt From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Fri Jun 10 14:54:18 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08112; Fri, 10 Jun 94 14:54:16 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa18064; 10 Jun 94 14:54 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03436; Fri, 10 Jun 94 11:51:42 PDT Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 11:51:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: House markup language (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 13:58:48 EDT FYI. The Full Committee markup will be June 20. The Senate markup will be July 11. Subject: House Appropriations Mark Up of FY95 NSF Budget Date: 10 Jun 94 09:39 EST Text item: Text_1 On June 9, 1994, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies marked up the FY 1995 appropriations act that contains funding recommendations for the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Subcommittee was provided with a very constrained allocation. They worked with an allocation that is $413 million below what the President's budget requested for the agencies and programs in the Subcommittee. In the context of this constrained environment, and similar to the authorization bill introduced by House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman George Brown, NASA was funded at a level of $14 billion, $240 million below the request. Within that amount, space station was fully funded at the requested level of $2.1 billion. For NSF, the subcommittee is recommending a total of $3106 million in new budget authority. This amount is 3% over last year. The table below compares the subcommittee's recommendation to the budget request and the FY 1994 level. STATUS OF FY 1995 NSF APPROPRIATIONS ($ in millions) ACCT FY94 FY95 FY95 FY95 FY95 PLAN REQ HSE SEN CONF R&RA 2164 2349 2217 ARFI 105 55 100 MRE 52 70 70 EHR 570 586 586 S&E 118 131 124 OIG 4 4 4 REL 5 5 5 NSF 3018 3200 3106 R&RA: Research and Related Activities ARFI: Academic Research Facilities and Instrumentation MRE: Major Research Equipment EHR: Education and Human Resources S&E: Salaries and Expenses OIG: Office of Inspector General REL: Relocation Reimbursement to GSA For Research and Related Activities, the Subcommittee has recommended a total of $2217 million. This represents an increase of $53 million - -- or 2.5% -- over FY 1994 but is below the budget request by $131 million. Within the recommendation, in addition to a general reduction of $65.9 million, the Subcommittee has included specific reductions from the request for global change research (-$33 million), high performance computing (-$29 million), the critical technologies institute (-$2 million), and civil infrastructure systems (-$1.5 million). For the Academic Research Infrastructure account, the Subcommittee has recommended a total of $100 million -- $45 million more than the request. For the new Major Research Equipment activity, the Subcommittee has recommended $70 million in new budget authority. This includes funds for the construction of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) and the GEMINI telescopes. In addition, the subcommittee rescinded $35 million in FY 1994 funds for LIGO and then reappropriated this same amount for LIGO in the FY 1995 Major Research Equipment account. For Education and Human Resources, the Subcommittee has provided the budget request of $586 million -- this represents an increase of 3% over the FY 1994 level. Within the funds provided the Subcommittee has made the following changes to the budget request: +$5 million for the EPSCOR program; +$5 million for the advanced technological education program; +$1 million for the Model Institutions of Excellence program; +$750,000 for the Partnerships for Minority Student Achievement program; +$500,000 for summer science camps; +$1 million for rural systemic reform; +$4 million for new starts in the graduate traineeship program; +$3 million for urban systemic reform; and -$20.25 million as a general reduction. For Salaries and Expenses, the Subcommittee has recommended $124 million -- a 5% increase over last year's level. The Office of Inspector General would be funded at $4 million and the $5.2 million requested to repay the General Services Administration for relocation reimbursement was provided in the Subcommittee's recommendation. Full Committee action is expected during the week of June 20 with House floor action to follow on or about June 27. From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:smartin@lternet.edu Fri Jun 10 21:10:52 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08883; Fri, 10 Jun 94 21:10:49 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15147; 10 Jun 94 21:10 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06221; Fri, 10 Jun 94 18:08:25 PDT Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 18:08:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Fall 1994 LTER Network News Contents (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: pLeahy@lternet.washington.edu, dHelsel@lternet.washington.edu, sDraggan@lternet.washington.edu, cDybas@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, tCallahan@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs and other potential contributors: It's time to finalize the contents of the Spring-Fall 1994 LTER Network News. Below, I've listed contributions I will be attempting to solicit and confirm over the next couple of weeks with the author or authors noted. These topics are suggested only at this point. Please call or send me a message as soon as possible if you are willing to contribute something on the topic listed next to your name. Also, please let me know if you have any additional news and calendar items, recent site publications (if I'm short on room, "submitted" or "in press" citations are the first eliminated except for those from featured sites), or meeting and workshop reports, and I will try to work them in. I WILL NEED ALL COPY AND OTHER MATERIAL BY AUGUST 19. (I plan to have the newsletter completed when I go on vacation Sept. 12.) TEXT SUBMISSIONS: It works best if you send your contribution to me in text format via electronic mail or via ftp (see instructions below) with a backup hard copy sent via regular mail (including any special formatting, such as super- and subscripts). I will be discussing length and other specifications with contributors individually. PHOTOS, FIGURES, ILLUSTRATIONS: Ideally, I need original high-resolution line art (original laser print or disk file with software used noted) and black and white prints of photographs. However, if you have original negatives or color slides, they can usually be converted successfully depending on the quality of the image. Color prints are the least desirable and are most often unusable. Please provide photographer/illustrator credit (full name or exactly as it should appear) and brief caption information for each item. Also note whether I may keep the material for our files or if you would like it returned. Thank you! FALL/WINTER 1994-5 NETWORK NEWS FEATURES: Central Plains (Burke/Lauenroth/Coffin) Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory (Meyer/Swank) LTER Governance Changes & Reflections on LTER (Franklin) LTER Role in National Biological Survey (Pulliam or Franklin--premature?) UPDATES & MEETING REPORTS: Bibliographic Database update and usage report (Bledsoe/Chinn) LMER Program--new & renewed sites (John Hobbie) LTER - EPA/EMAP awards (Draggan/Martinko, EPA/EMAP) Network Support System update (Nottrott) Other?: CROSS-SITE/COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH: NASA Collaboration update (Vande Castle) Cross-site Belowground Synthesis Project (Bledsoe) Conservative Tracer Addition to Streams (DeAngelo) Population studies in LTER (Allison and Lent, Harvard Forest) Sustainable Biosphere Initiative Office (new director) USGS-LTER Interactions (Leahy or Helsel/USGS) New site experiments, collaborations, results? INTERNATIONAL: ILTER Steering Committee Meeting (Nottrott/Heal) Hungary exchange (Freckman; Magnuson/Coffin/others, photos) GTOS Meeting (Baumgardner, Purdue) Other?: PUBLICATIONS: Recent site publications and LTER Network publicity (compiled by SM) New Network Office Publications: ILTER Report, Personnel Directory, El Nino Workshop Report Other publications of interest: CALENDAR: LTER Meetings: LTER/CC & Exec NSF deadlines and target dates Other?: SENDING PUBLICATIONS FILES VIA FTP (NOTE: This procedure has been changed slightly since last issue) To send text or graphic files to me for the newsletter or bulletin or other publications projects, follow the steps below (I'll use AND as an example, and assume you all have accounts on LTERnet. Those who do not first need to connect to LTERnet as guest users.) If you are using DOS or UNIX, first go to the directory in which the file you wish to send resides, then: 1. Type/enter "ftp lternet.edu". 2. When the``Name'' prompt appears, type/enter``anonymous''. 3. The message that a guest login is OK appears. At the "Password" prompt, type/enter your password if you have an account. Type/enter the "indent" or "tab" key followed by your e-mail address if you are an anonymous user (the address will not appear on your screen as you type it in). 4. At the ftp prompt (ftp>), type/enter "bin" (for binary) to ensure the file arrives as formatted. 5. Type/enter "cd /pub/upload/and" to set the path to the AND subdirectory. (If you have a GUI, graphical user interface, ftp program on a Mac, you may be able to save this information for future sessions.) 6. Type/enter "send filename" (or get filename" if you are retrieving a file). The message "Transfer Complete" indicates that the file has probably transferred successfully. To doublecheck, type "ls"to view a listing of current files and see if the one you just sent is there. 7. Disconnect from lternet.edu by entering ``quit''. 8. Notify me via e-mail(sMartin@LTERnet.edu) that the file has been transferred and is in your site's subdirectory. If you encounter difficulties, consult with your local computer technician or check with me and I'll work Daniel Pommert at the Network Office to find a solution. =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:woodc@ccmail.orst.edu Mon Jun 13 13:03:33 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02780; Mon, 13 Jun 94 13:03:31 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02896; 13 Jun 94 13:03 EDT Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15381; Mon, 13 Jun 94 10:01:20 PDT Received: from ccmail.orst.edu (ccmail-4.UCS.ORST.EDU [128.193.4.34]) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA05524 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 1994 10:00:55 -0700 From: woodc@ccmail.orst.edu Received: from cc:Mail by ccmail.orst.edu id AA771526749 Mon, 13 Jun 94 09:59:09 PST Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 09:59:09 PST Message-Id: <9405137715.AA771526749@ccmail.orst.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu, woodc@ccmail.orst.edu Subject: FROM: FRED SWANSON Status: OR We expect several young researchers to visit for 6-12 month periods during the next couple of years under "training" sponsored by World Bank funding to the Chinese Ecological Research Network. I expect that this is part of a program dispersed across the LTER network. Is your site now or expecting to host CERN researchers for training under this program? Thanks, Fred Swanson From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:freckman@picea.cnr.colostate.edu Mon Jun 27 16:23:14 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04299; Mon, 27 Jun 94 16:23:12 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa14530; 27 Jun 94 16:23 EDT Received: from picea (picea.CNR.ColoState.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26617; Mon, 27 Jun 94 13:21:20 PDT Received: from [129.82.104.84] by picea (4.1/SMI-DDN) id AA06639; Mon, 27 Jun 94 14:20:45 MDT Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 14:20:44 MDT Message-Id: <9406272020.AA06639@picea> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: PI@lternet.edu From: "Diana W. Freckman" Subject: Hungarian-LTER potential collaborations Status: OR LTER SCIENTISTS VISIT HUNGARIAN NATURE RESERVES As part of an NSF International Program grant funded to Diana Freckman (MCM) and Debra Coffin (CPR) at Colorado State University, 10 LTER scientists visited the Hungarian Nature Reserves from May 22 to 29 (1994). The visit and grant are part of a continuation of increased interest in the long term data sets on climate and biodiversity in Hungary noted by NSf Division of Environmental Biology Director, Dr. James Gosz, and Sevilletta LTER data management specialist, Dr. James Brunt in an earlier visit to Hungary in 1993. The objective of the grant is to promote the exchange of knowledge on biodiversity research between Hungarian scientists, who are world leaders in conducting biological surveys, and US scientists, who are among the world leaders in ecosystems research. Three meetings are planned in 1994-95 as part of this collaboration with the Hungarian scientists. Dr. Edit Kovacs-Lang is organizing the collaborators from Hungary. Participating Hungarian organizations include the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ecology and Botany with participation by the Plant Protection Institute, the Limnological Institute in Tihany, the Institute of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Hungarian Universities and the Hungarian Natural History Museum. The purposes of the 9-day trip in May were to identify: (1) a research basis for collaboration; (2) potential sites and scientists for collaborative partnerships; and, (3) long term biological survey data bases that would be useful in comparison to USA LTER data bases. LTER Participants included Linda Blum and Bruce Hayden (VCR), Jack Lattin and Tim Schowalter (AND), John Magnuson (NTL), Bob Parmenter and Terry Yates (SEV), Bob Waide (LUQ) and Freckman and Coffin. More than 20 Hungarian scientists participated in the meeting. The second meeting will occur in September when Hungarian scientists visit LTER sites (KBS, SEV, CPER, AND) to discuss management, analysis, and synthesis of long-term data. The final meeting will be a workshop in February 1995 in Hungary to initiate and establish research collaborations between Hungarian and US scientists in areas of biodiversity and climate change. LTER participants were impressed with the quality and quantity of data on biodiversity that have been collected in the past and are currently being collected by Hungarian scientists. Hungary has three climatic types (humid atlantic, dry continental, and mild submediterranean) that, along with the topography, contribute to produce an ecologically interesting aridity gradient for soils and vegetation over relatively short distances. Hungarian scientists have long term data sets dating to as early as the late 1800's of climate, and terrestrial and aquatic taxonomic groups. A number of types of ecosystems exist within Hungary, from dry, sandy grasslands to wet, loess grasslands to temperate forests, and lakes. LTER participants were fortunate to visit all types of these systems. One site visited was the Kiskunsag National Park, an area of 30,000 hectares, which was the site of an all-taxa survey. This park, composed of six different ecosystems, is a good example of a mosaic of ecosystems, each influenced by land management. Within this park are marshes, meadows, steppes, forests, agricultural fields, and saline lakes. The organisms have been identified and results published in a series of books, two volumes each on the flora and fauna. The groups studies appear very complete. For example, the fauna includes vertebrates (and their parasites) and soil invertebrates, such as tardigrades and nematodes. POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COLLABORATION Eastern Europe has ecosystems comparable to North America, and a comparison of various community-structure data sets (biodiversity, trophic analyses, etc.) would be productive for both groups. Additionally, data sets of different taxonomic resolution could be examined in terms of landscape level changes, stability of food web structures in disturbed ecosystems, social-economic issues, effects of land use management, and climate. Connection of the LTERs to the Hungarian long-term biodiversity data is important because the Hungarians are one of the few groups that can compare a recent survey of taxa to one taken 40 years ago - on the same sites (Mahunka, 1991). The linkage with the Hungarian scientists will provide critical information on biodiversity that will enhance and strengthen both programs as well as add to our knowledge of the relationships among species, ecosystems, and human use. According to Dr. Kovacs-Lang, and from Dr. Gosz's summary of his trip to Hungary, the Hungarians believe that this collaboration with United States LTER scientists can expand the use of their data sets. For example, electronic data management occurs in only a few situations, using a dbase approach. The Hungarian Institutes have a few PCs and some email capabilities. Mapping is performed by hand and there is little Hungarian capability for GIS or spatial analysis. Simulation modeling is not performed, although the data sets for such an effort are extensive. Few of the Hungarian data sets have community analyses. Thus, there are quality data sets that exist on a regional to country-wide basis that could be the basis for the analysis of broad-scale dynamics. The LTER scientists have extensive experience in the management, analysis, and synthesis of large amounts of long-term data. This experience and the associated technological advances in computer software, simulation modeling, and geographic information systems would be invaluable to the Hungarian scientists for data management and interpretation. There are a number of sites that could exist as long term ecological research sites in Hungary, including National Parks and Biosphere Reserves with lakes, streams and rivers, all having a history of long term biodiversity data collection. Areas of common interest with the LTERs would include land management and human use, grazing, fire, biomonitoring (short term) vs trend monitoring (which species is selected for trend analysis), climate change and policy issues such as maintenance of funding for long term sitesland use, and continuation of scientific resources such as systematics. LTER participants were enthusiastic about the possibilities for collaboration, and noted the strengths of the long term data sets and the focus on training of scientists in systematics and taxonomy in Hungary. Recommendations for initiating and improving research collaborations between US and Hungarian scientists are as follows: 1) Invite Hungarian scientists to attend workshops in the US where topics would include the long term species database management, and the use of GIS and simulation modeling to analyze long term data in order to provide a better understanding of the relationships between species diversity and ecosystem function; 2) Exchange of graduate students and scientists between Hungary and the US; 3) Establishment of an international electronic link between the USA LTER and Hungarian scientists, research programs, bibliographic lists, and data sets through LTERNET ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Diana W. Freckman, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory and College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 PHONE 303/491-1982, FAX 303/491-1965, EMAIL,dfreckman@lternet.edu, OR freckman@picea.cnr.colostate.edu From @lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu:jcallaha@nsf.gov Tue Jun 28 09:29:55 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06087; Tue, 28 Jun 94 09:29:54 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15358; 28 Jun 94 9:29 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00786; Tue, 28 Jun 94 06:28:41 PDT Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA42669 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 28 Jun 1994 09:28:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199406281328.AA42669@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: LTER Project Annual Reports Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 09:28:09 EDT From: "James T. Callahan" Status: OR Folks- Just a reminder to all of you to try your best !!! to have your annual reports to the program by July 15. This is the best compromise date I can think of. Reports need not be long or elaborate, but they should be useful and meaty. I don't intend to provide specific guidelines for content, but your attempt to synthesize a year's activities into a 3-5 page document that is readable and useful would be appreciated. Real scientific accomplishments should be emphasized, especially those we might be able to get some good press out of. Thanks, Tom From jgosz@sevilleta.lternet.washington.edu Sun Jul 10 12:07:51 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10452; Sun, 10 Jul 94 12:07:49 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27899; 10 Jul 94 12:07 EDT Received: from ariel.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03578; Sun, 10 Jul 94 09:04:45 PDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by ariel.unm.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0qN1MD-00001dC; Sun, 10 Jul 94 10:03 MDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA04124; Sun, 10 Jul 94 10:03:56 -0600 Message-Id: <9407101603.AA04124@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sun, 10 Jul 94 10:03:56 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: director position Status: OR Does anyone know of a qualified person for the position described below? jim gosz --- Forwarded mail from >From URIEL@vms.huji.ac.il Sun Jul 10 09:49:55 1994 Received: from VMS.HUJI.AC.IL by ariel.unm.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0qN18Z-00001dC; Sun, 10 Jul 94 09:49 MDT Received: by HUJIVMS (HUyMail-V6n); Sun, 10 Jul 94 18:49:51 +0300 Date: Sun, 10 Jul 94 18:49 +0300 Message-Id: <10070094184941@HUJIVMS> From: To: jgosz%sevilleta.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: network Dear Jim, Long time since we corresponded. Hope all is well with you. Recently I visited India, to advise the Government of one of their desert states, Gujarat, on estalishing an Institute for Desert Ecology Research. They are now looking for a director. Do you happen to know someone in the US, ecologist of an Indian origin, at mid career or somewhat earlier, that you think is suitbale for this challenge? please let me know. Thanks, Uriel Safriel --- End of forwarded message from From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Jul 13 15:15:50 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25746; Wed, 13 Jul 94 15:15:43 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01600; 13 Jul 94 15:15 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27007; Wed, 13 Jul 94 12:11:39 PDT Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 12:11:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: International LTER Summit Report To: PI@lternet.edu, ILTER@lternet.washington.edu Cc: LMERPI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I am in the process of distributing copies of the completed report of the September 1993 International LTER (ILTER) Summit. Five copies will go out to each of the Summit participants and the U.S. LTER sites, and 2 to each Land-Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) site and NSF participant (the Division of Environmental Biology will have a large quantity shortly). I will also be sending a supply for the ILTER Steering Committee's upcoming August 1994 meeting in the United Kingdom and copies to past international LTER Network Office contacts. Let me know if any of you would like additional copies for distribution to interested colleagues and any current or potential international research partners. Alternatively, feel free to send me complete names and addresses and I will forward copies to them directly. ALso, if you plan to attend an international meeting in the near future, you may wish to take a few copies along. Thank you. =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== From parmentr@puerco.unm.edu Wed Aug 17 18:55:54 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04023; Wed, 17 Aug 94 18:55:51 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00582; 17 Aug 94 18:55 EDT Received: from puerco.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23336; Wed, 17 Aug 94 15:54:00 PDT Return-Path: Received: by puerco.unm.edu (5.57/VISION/14Apr88/C) id AA00465; Wed, 17 Aug 94 16:53:50 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 16:53:50 -0600 From: parmentr@puerco.unm.edu Posted-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 16:53:50 -0600 Message-Id: <9408172253.AA00465@puerco.unm.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR ANNOUNCEMENT FOR: AUTUMN 1994 TECH JOBS AT SEVILLETA LTER As part of the Sevilleta LTER Program, I need to hire eight (8) research assistants for field sampling this fall. The positions will last for 7 weeks, beginning in mid-September. Would you please pass this along to any recently graduated students who might be interested in full-time field work for September and October this fall? Thanks! Sincerely yours, Bob Parmenter Sevilleta LTER ***************************************************************************** JOB ANNOUNCEMENT Eight (8) Biology Department Field Technician Positions Department contact: Dr. Robert R. Parmenter Department of Biology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 Telephone: 505-277-7619 Email: parmentr@sevilleta.unm.edu Email: PARMENTR@UNMB.BITNET Pay rate and hours: $6.00/hour, 40 hours/week; daily hours variable. Job Duration: Mid-September through October, 1994; total of 7 weeks full-time. Job location: Workers must be able to work at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, Socorro, New Mexico from Monday to Friday each week. Housing and kitchens will be provided free of charge at the Sevilleta Field Research Station. Food must be provided by the employee. Job Description: The field work includes measuring plants and abundances of vertebrate and invertebrate animal populations. Some computer data entry work will be performed. Generally, individual technicians will work either on plants or animals, but not usually both. Qualifications: College-level biology coursework preferred. Previous experience in field biological studies preferred. Skills in identifying plants and animals desirable. Applicants should be in good physical condition, as outdoor activity is required. Some typing or computer data entry capability is desired. Applications: Contact Bob Parmenter at Sevilleta LTER for application materials. Applications are due no later than Friday, August 26, 1994. From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Aug 18 13:18:06 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06619; Thu, 18 Aug 94 13:18:04 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16301; 18 Aug 94 13:17 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04196; Thu, 18 Aug 94 10:14:21 PDT Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 10:14:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: NSF Postdoc competition, FYI To: PI@lternet.washington.edu, LMERpi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, jobs@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR (Sorry for the length!) Subject: Postdoctoral Research Associates in Computational Science and Engineering The announcement for the FY95 Postdoctoral Research Associates in Computational Science and Engineering has just been placed on NSF's electronic Science & Technology Information System (STIS) (NSF 94-104). It is also attached at the end of this message. This very successful program has been supporting postdocs from all disciplines for the last four years; in FY94 sixteen postdocs were supported, 2 in Biology, 2 in Chemistry, 3 in Computer Science, 3 in Engineering, 3 in Materials, 2 in Math, and 1 in Physics. This year the deadline for submission has been moved up to November 1, 1994. DIVISION OF ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING OFFICE OF CROSS DISCIPLINARY-ACTIVITIES DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 1, 1994 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CISE Postdoctoral Research Associates in Computational Science and Engineering and, Associates in Experimental Science The Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Directorate of the National Science Foundation plans a limited number of grants for support of Postdoctoral Research Associateships contingent upon available funding. The Associates are of two types: o Associateships in Computational Science and Engineering (CS&E Associates) supported by the New Technologies Program in the Division of Advanced Scientific Computing (DASC) in cooperation with other NSF CS&E disciplines (CS&E Associates). The objective of these Associateship awards is to increase expertise in the development of innovative methods and software for applying high performance, scalable parallel computing systems in solving large scale CS&E problems. o Associateships in Experimental Science (ES Associates) supported by the Office of Cross Disciplinary Activities (CDA) . The objective of the ES Associateship awards is to increase expertise in CISE experimental science by providing opportunities for associates to work in established laboratories performing experimental research in one or more of the research areas supported by the CISE Directorate. These awards provide opportunities for recent Ph.D.s to broaden their knowledge and experience and to prepare them for significant research careers on the frontiers of contemporary computational science and engineering and experimental science. It is assumed that CS&E Associates will conduct their research at academic research institutions or other centers or institutions which provide access, either on site or by network, to high performance, scalable parallel computing systems and will be performing research associated with those systems. It is assumed that ES Associates will conduct their research in academic research institutions or other institutions devoted to experimental science in one or more of the research areas supported by the CISE Directorate. Who may submit Universities, colleges, and other research institutions as described in Grants Proposal Guide (GPG), (NSF-94-2) are eligible to submit proposals to this program. For CS&E Associateships the institution must have access to high performance, emerging parallel computing systems. For ES Associateships, the institution should have an established laboratory performing research in CISE experimental areas, as described in Guide to Programs, NSF 93-167. Associateship awards will be based on proposals submitted by the sponsoring institution. The principal investigator will serve as an unreimbursed scientific advisor for the research associate. Research associates should not be listed as co-principal investigators. Each proposal must include a research and training plan for the proposed research associate in an activity of computational science and engineering in any of the fields supported by DASC, other NSF CS&E programs or experimental research supported by the CISE Directorate. To be eligible for this support, individuals must: (1) be eligible to be appointed as a research associate or research assistant professor in the institution which has submitted the proposal, (2) fulfill the requirement for the doctoral degree in computational science and engineering, computer science and engineering or a closely related discipline by September 30, 1995. Award Amounts, Stipends and Research Expense Allowances Awards will range from $33,200-$46,200 for a 24 month period. The award will include $29,000-$42,000 to support the Research Associate (to be matched equally by the sponsoring institution). There will also be an allowance of $4,200 to the sponsoring institution, in lieu of indirect costs, as partial reimbursement for expenses incurred in support of the research. The annual award to the research associate will be composed of two parts: an annual stipend (salary and benefits) that may range from $25,000-$38,000, and a $4,000 per year research expense allowance expendable at the Associate's discretion for travel, publication expenses, and other research-related costs. There is no allowance for dependents. The effective date of the award cannot be later than January 1996. Matching Funds The institution must match the NSF award on a dollar for dollar basis excluding the $4,200 granted in lieu of indirect costs. Matching funds may come from grants from other NSF programs, other agencies' programs, or from other institutional resources. Matching fund arrangements are the responsibility of the submitting institution and must be detailed in the budget request. Evaluation and Selection Proposals will be reviewed by panel in accordance with established Foundation procedures and the general criteria described in the GPG brochure, and additional criteria specific to the Postdoctoral Research Associateships Program. The review panel will consider: the candidate's ability, accomplishments, potential as evidenced by the quality and significance of past research, long range career goals, the likely impact of the proposed postdoctoral training and research on the future scientific development of the applicant and on the parallel computing infrastructure of the US (for CS&E Associates) or on Experimental Science in CISE disciplines (for ES Associates), the aspects of the candidate's research and education, such as broadening research associates' knowledge and experience by a change in institution, advisor, or research area, and the adequacy of the sponsoring institution's access to high performance and/or experimental computational resources to support the proposed research. Application Procedures and Proposal Materials To be eligible for consideration, a proposal must contain forms which can be found in the GPG brochure. Required are a Supplementary Application Information Form (NSF Form 1225-one copy), a Current and Pending Support Form (NSF Form 1239-one copy) to be completed by the Principal Investigator (the scientific advisor), and one original and twelve copies of: (a) Cover page with institutional certificates (Form 1207). Title should indicate whether the proposal is an CS&E Postdoctoral Associate or ES Postdoctoral Associate. (b) Budget (Form 1030). (c) Statement with details regarding matching funds and their source. (d) Personal career goals statement not to exceed one single-spaced page, written by the research associate applicant, that describes the career goals of the applicant and what role the chosen research, scientific advisor and sponsoring institution will play in enhancing the realization of these long-range career goals. (e) Statement of results from prior NSF support (of the Principal Investigator) related to the proposed research. (f) Biographical sketch of the principal investigator as called for in the GPG brochure. (g) Up-to-date curriculum vitae of the research associate applicant including a complete list of publications, but no reprints (a thesis should not be included, but a thesis abstract may be included). (h) Proposal abstract, less than 250 words, of the training and research plan. (i) Training and research plan (not to exceed three single-spaced typewritten pages). This should propose research which could be carried out during the award period. The creativity, description and essential elements of the research proposal must be those of the research associate applicant. The research plan should show the broadening aspects of the proposed research. (j) Statement from the proposed postdoctoral advisor nominating the research associate indicating the nature of the postdoctoral supervision to be given if the award is made. (k) Statement from the advisor clearly describing the computing facilities and resources that will be available to support the proposed research. (l) Three recommendations (normally including one from the doctoral advisor). Training and research plans should be provided to your references to assist their recommendations. Please note that the research description page limit is less than the research description page limit specified in GPG. All application materials must be: (1) received by NSF no later than the deadline date November 1, 1994; (2) be postmarked no later than five (5) days prior to the deadline date; or (3) be sent via commercial overnight mail no later than two (2) days prior to the deadline date, to be considered for award. Send completed proposals with supporting application materials to: National Science Foundation - PPU Announcement No. 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 Additional Information If you wish additional information, please contact New Technologies Program Director, DASC, at 703-306-1970 (e-mail: ntpd@nsf.gov) for CS&E Associates or Program Director, CDA, at 703-306-1980 (e-mail: espd@nsf.gov) for ES Associates. Copies of most program announcements are available electronically using the Science and Technology Information System (STIS). The full text can be searched on-line, and copied from the system. Instructions for use of the system are in NSF 94-4 "STIS Flyer." The printed copy is available from the Forms and Publications Unit. An electronic copy may be requested by sending a message to "stis@nsf.gov" (Internet). The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and engineers and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and research-related programs described in this document. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on an NSF project. See program announcement (NSF 91-54), or contact the program coordinator (703) 306-1697 for more information. In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. NSF has TDD (Telephone Device for the Deaf) capability which enables individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Division of Human Resource Management for information relating to NSF programs, employment, or general information. This number is (703) 306-0090. Grants awarded as a result of this announcement are administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP-II, "Federal Demonstration Project General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee organization. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit, at (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail (Internet:pubs@.nsf.gov). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (July 1989) for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. "Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 47.070, Computer and Information Science and Engineering." The information requested on this application material is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be used and disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process and to other government agencies. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records" and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records" 56 Federal Register 54907 (October 23, 1991). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Herman G. Fleming Reports Clearance Officer Division of Contracts, Policy, and Oversight National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 And to: Office of Management and Budget Paperwork Reduction Project (3145-0058) Washington, DC 20503 OMB#3145-0058 P.T. 34 K.W.1004000,0600000 ------- End of Forwarded Message From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Aug 24 12:43:44 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25026; Wed, 24 Aug 94 12:43:43 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26739; 24 Aug 94 12:43 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06762; Wed, 24 Aug 94 09:39:48 PDT Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 09:39:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: New Research Assistant Position--Harvard Forest LTER site To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, jobs@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NOTE: September 1, 1994 Application Deadline! RESEARCH ASSISTANT IN FOREST ECOLOGY The Harvard Forest Long-Term Ecological Research Program is investigating the impact of natural and human disturbance processes on landscapes of central New England. The research focuses on central Massachusetts and involves collaborative studies in the areas of physiological, population, community and ecosystem ecology, as well as archaeology, paleolimnology, and atmospheric chemistry. We are seeking an individual with a strong background in ecology, botany or forestry to undertake fieldwork and data analysis in forest community ecology. Responsibilities will include field sampling of forest vegetation in long-term and experimental plots, statistical and GIS analysis of modern and historical data, maintenance of experiments, equipment and long-term data, report writing and collaboration on diverse research projects. Requirements include a BS or MS in ecology, biology or forestry, relevant and related experience, and extensive familiarity with spreadsheet, database and statistical software. Related experience in vegetation mapping, GIS, or air photo interpretation would be very helpful. The individual will work closely will the research group of Dr. David Foster to undertake diverse projects in forest ecology. The appointment will be made on an annual basis and is renewable, based on performance evaluation and the availability of funding. Salary will be commensurate with experience. Please send resume, academic transcripts, and three letters of recommendation to Dr. David Foster, Harvard Froest, Harvard University, P.O. Box 68, Petersham, MA 01366 BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1994. Harvard University is an Equal Opportunity Employer and applications from women and minorities are strongly encouraged. =========================================================================== From schlesin@acpub.duke.edu Fri Aug 26 08:59:18 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01149; Fri, 26 Aug 94 08:59:17 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02602; 26 Aug 94 8:59 EDT Received: from acpub.duke.edu (mercury.acpub.duke.edu) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17996; Fri, 26 Aug 94 05:57:17 PDT Received: from schlesin.botany.duke.edu (schlesin.botany.duke.edu [152.3.12.76]) by acpub.duke.edu (8.6.8.1/Duke-2.0) with SMTP id IAA16516; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 08:57:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199408261257.IAA16516@acpub.duke.edu> X-Sender: schlesin@popserv.acpub.duke.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 07:05:16 -0400 To: pi@lternet.edu, Judy Meyer From: "William H. Schlesinger" Subject: X-Mailer: Status: OR Judy: My life is too chaotic to edit ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, so I guess I have no conflict of interest in serving with Orians on a committee to select new editors. William H. Schlesinger James B. Duke Professor Departments of Botany and Geology Duke University Durham, N.C. 27708-0340 Phone: 919-660-7406 Fax 919-684-5412 Email: schlesin@acpub.duke.edu Home Office: 919-489-2247 From adub@lternet.edu Mon Oct 10 17:57:00 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25078; Mon, 10 Oct 94 17:56:59 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06517; 10 Oct 94 17:56 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14555; Mon, 10 Oct 94 14:54:03 PDT Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 14:54:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: message from Jerry Franklin To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: jlubchenco@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORp ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A hard copy of this memo, including attachments, will be mailed to the Extended PI list this week. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: LTER Principal Investigators October 10, 1994 From: Jerry Franklin, Chair, LTER/CC Subject: Nomination for next Chair LTER/CC and Director LTER Network Office As per our procedures adopted last spring, the Executive Committee has proceeded to solicit nominations and contact candidates for the next chair of the LTER Coordinating Committee; Jane Lubchenco was added to our group for this "search" process. During the process 15 individuals were nominated, all of them by scientists within LTER. Although LMER and LTREB PIs were contacted, no nominations were offered. Six of the nominees were from within our LTER ranks and three (Gosz, Hayden, and Magnuson) received more than one nomination. Of the nominees, three indicated an interest in the Chair. Magnuson and Hayden both indicated a willingness to serve if we lacked an appropriate and willing candidate but, otherwise, preferred not to be considered for the Chair at this time because of pressing site responsibilities. Gosz indicated both an interest in the Chair and an ability to devote a significant amount of time to the job during the next several years, including a half-time commitment during 1995. A copy of his CV and a letter outlining his vision for the LTER Network is enclosed. The Executive Committee has considered Dr. James Gosz' qualifications and is pleased to unanimously recommend him to the full LTER/CC as our candidate for Chair of the LTER/CC and Director of the LTER Network Program for 1995-1997. We think that LTER is very fortunate to have someone with Dr. Gosz' experience, ability and dedication that is willing to take on the responsibilities of the Chair. Discussion and voting on the Chair will occur during the closed session of the LTER/CC on October 19. Enclosures: Gosz CV Gosz letter cc:Lubchenco From adub@lternet.edu Mon Oct 10 19:03:12 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25296; Mon, 10 Oct 94 19:03:08 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17133; 10 Oct 94 19:03 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14963; Mon, 10 Oct 94 15:57:01 PDT Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 15:57:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: Draft Agenda: Oct. LTER/CC meeting Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Apparently-To: Apparently-To: Status: ORp JFFranklin, 10/10/94 TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR THE LTER/CC MEETING COWEETA HYDROLOGIC LABORATORY, OCTOBER 18-21, 1994 October 18 Executive Committee and West Coast participants fly in October 19 9:00 a.m. Executive Committee meeting 1:00 p.m. LTER/CC, CLOSED MEETING (one designated representative per LTER site, LTER committee chairs, LTER Executive committee members) 4:30 p.m. LTER/CC closed meeting adjourn 5:00 p.m. Social October 20 8:30 a.m. LTER/CC, open meeting (all participants) 12:00 Lunch 1:00 p.m. LTER/CC, open meeting (continued) 4:00 p.m. Adjourn 5:00 p.m. Barbecue October 21 a.m. Field trip to Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR LTER/CC CLOSED MEETING NSF Comments Discussion of comments and proposed agenda Election of new chair Brief reports from PIs receiving supplemental grants Brief reports from standing committees (mainly to clear away questions/problems for reports in open meeting) Data Management Climate Publications Technology Synthesis Graduate Student Consideration of location for 1996 All-Scientist meeting Report on Network Office review Report on Network Office proposal Commentary on and suggestions of workshops Advice and comment by LTER/CC on proposal Discussion on approaches to LTER network "outreach" (How do we incorporate other sites/networks?) TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR LTER OPEN MEETING NSF Staff comments Report by the LTER Chair Activities and changes Network Office review Network Program proposal Reports from the standing committees Climate Publications Technology Synthesis Graduate Student Data Management Report of committee Discussion of on-line data sets issues Demonstration of new capabilities International LTER activities ILTER meeting and plans Canadian LTER activities Report on NSF Supplemental awards Site supplements, x-site, and international Bledsoe report Issues for discussion in LTER/CC open meeting Workshops: subjects and structures Outreach: basis for recognizing affiliate LTER sites LTER Science vignettes 3-minute "site bytes" on current scientific findings from each LTER project ---------------END----------------- From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Oct 12 15:45:34 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03401; Wed, 12 Oct 94 15:45:30 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25792; 12 Oct 94 15:45 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00391; Wed, 12 Oct 94 12:42:31 PDT Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 12:42:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: LTER Collaboration Grant-Sponsored Publications (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Status: OR For attachment to the cooperative agreement which will replace the Network Office collaboration grant, I'm updating the list of publications sponsored under the grant. I need your help to identify them correctly. Let me apologize in advance if I've inadvertently omitted anything important.=20 Please review the attached list and provide me with any corrections and/or additions. Note particularly any incomplete citations, if you would. The publications listed here should be those which are products from Network Office-sponsored workshops, meetings, subcontracts, or other activities for which the Network Office provided support. If some of those listed were strictly from site support, they should not be be included.=20 I hope to gather your corrections before the upcoming LTER/CC meeting, that is before next Tuesday, but I will also have some copies of the list at Coweeta to solicit this information.=20 Thank you for your assistance. Stephanie Martin Publications Coordinator LTER Network Office 206-543-6764/206-543-7295 (FAX) sMartin@LTERnet.edu =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D LTER COLLABORATION GRANT-SPONSORED PUBLICATIONS Aber, J. D., C. Driscoll, C. A. Federer, R. Lathrop, G. Lovett, J. M. Melillo, P. Steudler, and J. Vogelmann. 1993. A strategy for the regional analysis of the effects of physical and chemical climate change on biogeochemical cycles in Northeastern (U.S.) Forests. Pages 36-48 in: P.J. Bacon (ed.). Long-Term Ecological Research and Regional Prediction. Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Ecological Modelling (67)1.=20 Bhowmik, N. G. 1987. Hydrologic research at LTER sites. EOS 68(37)745, 750, 756.=20 Bildstein, K.L. and Brisbin, Jr. I.L. 1990. Lands for long-term research in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 4:301-308.=20 Brunt, J. W., J. Porter and R. Nottrott. 1990. Internet Connectivity in LTER: Assessment and Recommendations. LTER Publication No. 7. Long-Term Ecological Research Network Office, University of Washington:Seattle, WA. 36 pp.=20 Burke, I. C. and W. K. Lauenroth. 1993. What do LTER results mean? Extrapolating from site to region and decade to century. Pages 19-36 in: P.J. Bacon (ed.). Long-Term Ecological Research and Regional Prediction.=20 Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Ecological Modelling (67)1.=20 Burke, I. C., T. G. F. Kittel, W. K. Lauenroth, P. Snook, and C. M. Yonker. 1991. Regional analysis of the central Great Plains: sensitivity to climate variability. BioScience 41:685-692.=20 Caine, N. and F. J. Swanson. 1989. Geomorphic coupling of hillslope and channel systems in two small mountain basins. Z. Geomorph. N.F. 33(2):189-203.=20 Carpenter, S.R., T.M. Frost, J.F. Kitchell, T.K. Kratz, D.W. Schindler, J. Shearer, W.G. Sprules, M.J. Vanni, and A.P. Zimmerman. 1991. Patterns of primary production and herbivory in 25 North American lake ecosystems. In J. Cole, G. Lovett, and S. Findlay (eds.) Comparative Analyses of Ecosystems: Patterns, Mechanisms and Theories. Springer-Verlag, NY.=20 Crum, J. R. G. P. Robertson, and F. Nurnberger. 1990. Long-term climate trends and agricultural productivity in southwest Michigan. Pages 53-58 in: Greenland, D. and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Foster, D. R. and E. Boose. 1992. Technology Development in the LTER Network_Current Status of GIS, Remote Sensing, Internet Connectivity, Archival Storage and Global Positioning Systems. (LTER Publication No. 12) LTER Network Office, University of Washington, Seattle. 23 pp.=20 Franklin, J. F. 1988. Importance and justification of long-term studies in ecology. Pages 3-19 in: Likens, G. E. (ed.). Long-term studies in ecology: approaches and alternatives. Springer-Verlag: New York.=20 Franklin, J. F. 1988. Past and future of ecosystem research_contributions of dedicated experimental sites. Pages 415-424 in: Swank, W. T., and D. A. Crossley (eds.). Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Springer-Verlag: New York.=20 Franklin, J. F. (ed.). 1990. 1990's Global Change Action Plan: Utilizing a Network of Ecological Research Sites. (LTER Publication No. 4) Long-Term Ecological Research Network Office, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 36 pp.=20 Furrer, G., J. Westall, and P. Sollins. 1989. The study of soil chemistry through quasi-steady-state models. I. Mathematical definition of model. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 53:595-601.=20 Furrer, G., P. Sollins, and J. Westall. 1990 . The study of soil chemistry through quasi-steady-state models. II. Soil solution acidity. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 54:2363-2374.=20 Greenland, D. 1986. Standardized meteorological measurements for long-term ecological research sites. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 67:275-277.=20 Greenland, D. (ed.). 1987. The Climates of the Long-Term Ecological Research Sites. (LTER Publication No. 2) Occasional Paper No. 44, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder. 81 pp.=20 Greenland, D. 1990. Climate variability at Niwot Ridge in the Twentieth Century. Pages 59-62 in: D. Greenland and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.=20 Greenland, D. 1993. Climate studies in the Long-Term Ecological Research Program. Pages 5-11 in: K.T. Redmond and V.L. Tharp (eds.). Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Pacific Climate PACLIM Workshop. Technical Report 34 of the Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, Sacramento, CA Department of Water Resources. 194 pages.=20 Greenland, D. (ed.). 1994. El Ni=A4o & Long-Term Ecological Research Sites. LTER Publication No. 18. LTER Network Office, University of Washington: Seattle, WA. 57 pp.=20 Greenland, D., and L. W. Swift (eds.). 1990. Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65 (LTER Publication No. 6), USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Greenland, D., and L. W. Swift, Jr. 1991. Climate variability and ecosystem response: Opportunities for the LTER Network. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 72:118-126.=20 Greenland, D., and L. W. Swift. 1990. Overview of climate variability and ecosystem response. Pages 85-90 in: Greenland, D., and L. W. Swift (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Harmon, M.E. and H. Chen. 1991. Coarse woody debris dynamics in two old- growth ecosystems. BioScience 41:604-610. Hayden, B. P. 1990. Climate change and ecosystem dynamics at the Virginia Coast Reserve 18,000 B.P. Pages 76-84 in: D. Greenland and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65 , USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.=20 Hayden, B. P., R. D. Dueser, J. T. Callahan, and H. H. Shugart. 1991. Long-term research at the Virginia Coast Reserve. BioScience 41:310-318.=20 Harmon, M. E., and H. Chen. 1991. A comparison of coarse woody debris dynamics in two old-growth forest ecosystems: Chanbai Mountain, PRC and H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, USA. BioScience 41:604-610.=20 Ingersoll, R. and S. Chapal. 1992. The Management of Electronically Collected Data Within the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Program: A Survey Conducted in January 1992. LTER Network Office, University of Washington: Seattle, Washington.=20 Kittel, T. G. F. 1990. Climatic variability in the shortgrass steppe. Pages 67-75 in: D. Greenland and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.=20 Kittel, T.G.F. 1991. Continental-scale response of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index to climate variability. ESA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, August 1991. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 72 (2, Suppl.):162. Abstract.=20 Kittel, T.G.F. (In preparation.) Relationships between variability in climate and a satellite-derived vegetation index across North America. Remote Sensing of the Environment.=20 Kittel, T .G. F., D. S. Schimel, W. J. Parton, D. S. Ojima, H. W. Hunt, and R. L. Sanford, Jr. (Submitted.) Biogeochemical response to climate change and elevated CO2. Nature.=20 Kratz, T. K., B. J. Benson, E. Blood, G. Cunningham, and R. Dahlgren. 1991. The influence of landscape position on temporal variability in four North American ecosystems. The American Naturalist 138(2):355-378.=20 Kratz, T. K., J. J. Magnuson, P. Bayley, B. J. Benson, C. Berish, C. Bledsoe, E. Blood, C. J. Bowser, S. Carpenter, G. Cunningham, R. Dahlgren, T. M. Frost, J. Halfpenny, J. Hansen, D. Heisey, R. Inouye, D. Kaufman, A. McKee and J. Yarie. (Submitted.) Comparison of spatial and temporal variability of ecological parameters from 12 diverse North American ecosystems.=20 Lauenroth, W.K., D.L. Urban, D.P. Coffin, W.J. Parton, H.H. Shugart, T.B. Kirchner and T.M. Smith. 1993. Pages 49-80 in: P.J. Bacon (ed.) Long-Term Ecological Research and Regional Prediction. Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Ecological Modelling (67(1).=20 Lee, T.J., R.A. Pielke, T.G.F. Kittel, and J.F. Weaver. 1991. Atmospheric modeling and its spatial representation of land surface characteristics. In: Proceedings, 1st International Conference in Integrating Geographical Information Systems and Environmental Modeling.=20 Long-Term Intersite Decomposition Experiment Team (LIDET). 1993. Long- Term Decomposition Experiments. 1993 LTER All Scientists Meeting, Estes Park, Colorado, USA, September 18-22, 1993.=20 Long-Term Intersite Decomposition Experiment Team (LIDET). In review. Meeting the challenge of long-term large-scale ecological experiments. BioScience.=20 LTER Network News. Newsletter of the U.S. LTER Network (semi-annual). LTER= =20 Network Office, University of Washington:Seattle, Washington.=20 Magnuson, J.J. and C.J. Bowser. 1990. A network for long-term ecological research in the United States. Freshw. Biol. 23:137-143.=20 Magnuson, J.J. T.K. Kratz, T.M. Frost, C.J. Bowser, B.J. Benson, and R. Nero. 1991. Expanding the temporal and spatial scales of ecological research and comparison of divergent ecosystems: roles for LTER in the United States. Pages 45- 66 in P.G. Risser and J.M. Melillo (eds.). Long-Term Ecological Research, An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.=20 Michener, W.K. A.B. Miller, R.W. Nottrott (eds.). 1990. Long-Term Ecological Research Network Core Data Set Catalog. Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research, University of South Carolina:Columbia. 322 pages.=20 Michener, W.K. J.W. Brunt, and S.G. Stafford. 1994. Environmental Informati= on Management and Analysis: Ecosystem to Global Scales. Taylor & Francis. Ltd.:London. (Any LTER support?) =20 Milne, B.T. 1991. Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns. Pages 199-235 in M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner (eds.). Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Sevilleta LTER Publication No. 5. Springer-Verlag, New York.=20 Lauenroth, W. K., D. L. Urban, D. P. Coffin, W. J. Parton, H. H. Shugart, T. B. Kirchner, and T. M. Smith. (In press.) Modeling vegetation structure-ecosystem process interactions across sites and ecosystems. Ecological Modelling.=20 Lee, T. J., R. A. Pielke, T. G. F. Kittel, and J. F. Weaver. 1991. Atmospheric modeling and its spatial representation of land surface characteristics. In: Proceedings, 1st International Conference in Integrating Geographical Information Systems and Environmental Modeling.=20 Litz, S., K. V. Le, T. Giblin, A. Beller, T. G. F. Kittel, and D. S. Schimel. 1991. A temporal GIS for global change research. Proceedings, GIS/LIS '91 Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA October/November 1991.=20 Long-Term Ecological Research Network (LTER) 1994-5 Personnel Directory. 1994. Long-Term Ecological Research Network Office, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 158 pp.=20 Magnuson, J. J. 1990. Long-term ecological research and the invisible present.. LTER Publication No. 9. BioScience 40:495-501.=20 Magnuson, J. J., B. J. Benson and D. K. Hill. 1990. (In press.) A long-term ecological research network in the USA and the potential of a lake site to address global change issues. Symposium on Concepts in Ecosystem Science, Kiel, West Germany, October 1989.=20 Magnuson, J. J., B.J . Benson and T. K. Kratz. 1990. Temporal coherence in the limnology of a suite of lakes in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 23:145-159.=20 Magnuson, J. J. and C.J . Bowser. 1990. A network for long-term ecological research in the United States. Freshwater Biology 23:137-143.=20 Magnuson, J. J. and J. A. Drury. 1991. Global Change Ecology. Pages 304-311 in: The World & I.=20 Magnuson, J. J., T. K. Kratz, T. M. Frost, B. J. Benson, R. Nero, and C. J. Bowser. 1991. Expanding the temporal and spatial scales of ecological research and comparison of divergent ecosystems: roles for LTER in the United States. In: P. G. Risser and J. M. Melillo (eds.). Long-Term Ecological Research: An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. Wiley & Sons:New York.=20 Magnuson, J.J. T.K. Kratz, T.M. Frost, C.J. Bowser, B.J. Benson, R. Nero. 1991. Expanding the temporal and spatial scales of ecological research and comparison of divergent ecosystems: roles for LTER in the United States. Pages 45-66 in: P.G. Risser (ed.) Long-Term Ecological Research: An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. John Wiley & Sons:Chichester. 294 pages.=20 Meyer, J. (ed.). 1993. Stream Research in the Long-Term Ecological Research Network. LTER Publication No. 15. LTER Network Office, University of Washington:Seattle, WA. 114 pp.=20 Michener, W. K., D. M. Allen, E. R. Blood, T. A. Hiltz, B. Kjerfve and F. H. Sklar. 1990. Climatic variability and salt marsh ecosystem response: relationship to scale. Pages 27-37 in: Greenland, D. and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Milne, B. T. 1991. Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns. Pages 199-235 in M. G. Turner and R. H. Gardner (eds.). Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Sevilleta LTER Publication No. Springer-Verlag: New York.=20 Nottrott, R.W., J.F. Franklin, J.R. Vande Castle (compilers). 1994. International Networking in Long-Term Ecological Research. LTER Publication No. 17. LTER Network Office, University of Washington:Seattle, WA.=20 O'Neill, R. V., S. J. Turner, V. I. Cullinan, D. P. Coffin, T. Cook, W. Conley, J. Brunt, J. M. Thomas, M. R. Conley, and J. Gosz. 1991. Multiple landscape scales: an intersite comparison. Landsc. Ecol. 5:137-144.=20 Pielke, R.A., G. Dallu, J.S. Snook, T.J. Lee, and T.G.F. Kittel. 1991. Nonlinear influence of mesoscale landuse on weather and climate. J. Climate ( In press) Pielke, R.A., G. Dalu, T.G.F. Kittel, J.Lee, D. Ojima, and X. Zeng. Influence of surface heat and moisture fluxes on climate and weather. Submitted to J. Soil and Water Conservation.=20 Pielke, R. A., T. J. Lee, J. F. Weaver, and T. G. F. Kittel. 1990. Influence of vegetation on water and heat distribution over mesoscale-sized areas. Pages 46-49 in: Eighth Conference on Hydrometeorology October 22-26, 1990, Kananaskis Park, Alberta, Canada. American Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass.=20 Pielke, R. A., D. S. Schimel, T. J Lee, T. G. F. Kittel, and X. Zeng. 1993. Atmosphere-terrestrial ecosystem interactions: implications for coupled modeling. Pages 5-18 in: P.J. Bacon (ed.). Long-Term Ecological Research and regional prediction. Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Ecological Modelling 67(1).=20 Pielke R. A., G. Dalu, J. R. Garratt, T. G. F. Kittel, R. A. Stocker, T. J. Lee and J. S. Snook. Influence of mesoscale land use on weather and climate and its representation for use in larger-scale models. Journal of Climate.=20 Risser, P. G. 1991. Long-Term Ecological Research and Global Change. SCOPE Series. John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY.=20 Risser, P.G. and J.M. Melillo. 1991. Long-Term Ecological Research, An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester. 294 pp.=20 Risser, P.G., J.M. Melillo, and J.R.Gosz. 1991. Current status and future of long- term ecological research. Pages 275-284 in: P.G. Risser (ed.). Long-Term Ecological Research, An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester. 294 pp.=20 Robertson, D. M. 1990. Lakes as indicators of and responders to climatic change. Pages 38-46 in: D. Greenland and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Runkle, J. R. 1992. Guidelines and sample protocol for sampling forest gaps. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-283. LTER Publication No. 14. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 44 pp.=20 Seastedt, T.R. and J.M. Briggs. 1991. Long-term ecological questions and considerations for taking long-term measurements: Lessons from the LTER and FIFE programs on tallgrass prairie. Pages 153-170 in P.G. Risser (ed.) Long-Term Ecological Research: An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. John Wiley & Sons:Chichester. 294 pages.=20 Schimel, D.S., T.G.F. Kittel, and W.J. Parton. 1991. Terrestrial biogeochemical cycles: Global interactions with the atmosphere and hydrology. Tellus 43AB:188- 203.=20 Schlesinger, W. H., et al. 1992. Soil-warming experiments in global change research. Report of a workshop held in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, September 27-28, 1991.=20 Shugart, H. H., et al. 1988. Report of the National Science Foundation Advisory Committee on Scientific and Technological Planning for Long-Term Ecological Research Projects.=20 Shugart, H.H. 1990. Modeling future changes of vegetation succession. Pages 61- 67 in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Global Change Systems. American Meterological Society, Boston, Massachusetts.=20 Shugart, H. H., G. B. Bonan, D. L. Urban, W. K. Lauenroth, W. J. Parton, and G. M. Hornberger. 1991. Computer models and long-term ecological research. Pages 211-239 in: P. R. Risser (ed.). Long-Term Ecological Research and Global Change. SCOPE 47. John Wiley & Sons:Chichester.=20 Solute Dynamics Workshop. 1990. Concepts and methods for assessing solute dynamics in stream ecosystems. Proceedings of a workshop at the University of Mississippi, February 1989. Jrnl. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 9(2):95-119.=20 Swanson, F. J., and J. F. Franklin. 1988. The Long-Term Ecological Research Program. EOS: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 69:34, 36, 46.=20 Swanson, F. J. and R. E. Sparks. 1990. Long-term ecological research and the invisible place. (LTER Publication No. 9) BioScience 40:502-508.=20 Swanson, F. J., T. K. Kratz, N. Caine, R. G. Woodmansee. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and processes. BioScience 38(2):92-98.=20 Swift, L. W., Jr., J. B. Waide, and D. L. White. 1990. Application of the Z-T extreme event analysis using Coweeta streamflow and precipitation data. Pages 13-18 in: Greenland, D. and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Tilman, D. and D. Wedin. 1991. Oscillations and chaos in the dynamics of a perennial grass. Nature 353:653-655.=20 U.S. Long-Term Ecological Research Network:National Research Sites with a Common Commitment. 1993. LTER Network Office, University of Washington:Seattle, WA. 8 pp.=20 Van Cleve, K., and S. J. Martin. 1991. Long-Term Ecological Research in the United States, A Network of Research Sites 1991. Sixth Edition. (LTER Publication No. 11) Long-Term Ecological Research Network (LTER) Office, University of Washington, Seattle. 178 pp.=20 Vande Castle, J. R. 1991. Remote sensing and modeling activities for long-term ecological research. Pages 544-55: in: GIS/LIS '91 Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, October/November 1991, Proceedings, Volume 2. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.=20 Viereck, L. A. and P. C. Adams. 1990. Variation in microclimate among sites and changes of climate with time. Pages 19-26 in: Greenland, D. and L. W. Swift, Jr. (eds.). Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response. General Technical Report SE-65, USDA Forest Service, Southeast Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 90 pp.=20 Westall, J., P. Sollins, P. Berberg, and G. Furrer. (In preparation.) The study of soil chemistry through quasi-steady-state models. III. Buffering of soil solution acidity by fast vs. slow reactions in five temperate-zone forest ecosystems. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.=20 Woodmansee, R. G. 1990. Biogeochemical cycles and ecological hierarchies. Pages 57-71 in: I. S. Zonneveld and R. T. T. Forman (eds.). Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.=20 Zak, D. R., D. F. Grigal, S. Gleeson and D. Tilman. 1990. Carbon and nitrogen cycling during secondary succession: constraints on plant and microbial productivity. Biogeochemistry 11:111-129, =20 Zak, D. R. and D. Tilman. (In preparation.) Factors controlling microbial biomass along a climatic gradient in North America. Ecology.=20 =1A From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Oct 25 15:43:49 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07416; Tue, 25 Oct 94 15:43:48 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21815; 25 Oct 94 15:43 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17137; Tue, 25 Oct 94 12:40:47 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:40:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Federal Funds Used to Modernize Reearch Labs (fwd) To: PI@lternet.edu Cc: LMERPI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR National Science Foundation October 14, 1994 NSF PR 94-61 69 COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDS TO MODERNIZE RESEARCH LABS Fourth Round of NSF Awards Total Nearly $53 Million U.S. academic research facilities -- long revered for their collective role in keeping the nation at the forefront in science and engineering, and for educating future researchers -- will receive a $52.8 million federal shot-in-the-arm to help modernize laboratories and related research areas, thanks to grants from the National Science Foundation's Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) Program. In addition to the modernization component, ARI also provides financial support for state-of-the-art research instrumentation. [See NSF PR 94-62.] The ARI Program, established by Congress as part of the Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act of 1988, requires successful applicants to provide matching funds. As a result, the 69 colleges and universities receiving federal grants this year for modernization activities will contribute an additional $85.9 million in funds from their own coffers as well as from state and local governments and the private sector. "I am extremely pleased that this is the fourth time we are able to make these modernization awards," said Nathaniel Pitts, director of NSF's office of science and technology infrastructure. "The federal dollars, when combined with the matching funds, result in a partnership which will dedicate nearly $139 million to the repair and renovation of this country's aging labs and research facilities, some of which are more than 100 years old," Pitts added. Recipients of the awards include 22 baccalaureate- and masters-degree-granting institutions, and 47 doctoral-degree-granting institutions located in 32 states and one commonwealth. Included among this year's grantees are three research museums and one non-profit research institution. The awards were highly competitive: only about 25 percent of the 285 proposals (from 224 institutions) received federal funding. Nearly $220 million was requested in the proposals. The awards range in size from about $111,000 to Union College in upstate New York to $2 million each to Auburn, North Carolina A&T State, and Stanford universities (which will, for example, match the federal contribution with an additional $9 million to renovate its chemistry research facilities). The projects are expected to take from one to five years to complete. Typically they involve renovating out-dated laboratories and other research facilities; upgrading or replacing antiquated plumbing, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems; and replacing inefficient or broken laboratory equipment. Amherst College, for example, will combine a $1.78 million dollar NSF award with matching funds to renovate and replace nearly 20,000 square feet of biology, neuroscience, and psychology laboratory space located in two buildings that are 139 and 83 years old. Florida International University will use a $1.5 million NSF award and matching funds to renovate about 27,000 square feet of biology research space which had deteriorated over time, including replacing an inadequate fire sprinkler system. Franklin and Marshall College with its $1.5 million NSF award and matching funds will modernize more than 30,200 square feet of research and research training areas by modifying electrical and plumbing systems, installing a distilled water system and effective ventilation and air-conditioning systems, and upgrading an existing fume hood system to bring it into compliance with EPA standards. And the University of South Dakota will use a $145,700 NSF award and matching funds to renovate more than 1,550 square feet of human factors research laboratory space housed in a 64-year old building. Since the inception of the ARI Program, NSF has made 237 awards totaling more than $145 million to 153 institutions. -end- Attachment: Awards List can be obtained from Michelle Edwards, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, Room 1245. ***For more information on NSF PR 94-61, contact Michael Fluharty (mfluhart) via E-Mail or at 703/306-1070.*** - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have items to be posted to the OLPA News bulletin board please send them to "olpa-news@nsf.gov". To reply to this message from cc:Mail please answer "N" when asked: "Do you wish to retain all the original addresses?" - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Oct 25 15:44:07 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07421; Tue, 25 Oct 94 15:44:04 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21891; 25 Oct 94 15:44 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17113; Tue, 25 Oct 94 12:39:35 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:39:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: State of the Art Instrumentation Awards (fwd) To: PI@lternet.washington.edu Cc: LMERPI@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR National Science Foundation October 14, 1994 NSF PR 94-62 NSF MAKES AWARDS TO 145 INSTITUTIONS FOR STATE-OF-THE-ART INSTRUMENTATION Nearly $53 Million Awarded By Academic Research Infrastructure Program Thanks to grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), 145 institutions nationwide will receive a total of $52.8 million to acquire or develop state-of-the-art scientific instrumentation. The grants were made by NSF's Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) Program. In addition to providing federal funds for instrumentation, ARI also supports the modernization and renovation of research facilities. [See NSF PR 94-61.] The ARI Program was established by Congress as part of the Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act of 1988. As with the modernization and renovation component, successful applicants for instrumentation grant support are required to provide between 30 and 50 percent in matching funds. State-of-the-art instrumentation is "crucial to achieving scientific discoveries, discoveries which enhance the nation's well-being and help ensure future prosperity," said Nathaniel Pitts, director of NSF's office of science and technology infrastructure. About 155 of the awards, he added, provide instrumentation in strategic areas, eight areas designated for special emphasis by the Clinton Administration because of the significant potential they have for enhancing the quality of peoples' lives. These areas include advanced materials and processing, biotechnology, and high performance computing and communications. Pitts said that the merging of federal research support with that from other sources provides a strengthening of partnerships between the federal government, academic institutions, and industry. "It's critical if we are to continue to remain at the forefront in developing state-of-the-art instrumentation and in training people how to use it," Pitts added. The awards are targeted at research institutions whose research equipment needs range between $100,000 and $2 million. Seven awards totalling $1 million or more were made, while a few awards of less than $100,000 were made, primarily to undergraduate institutions or to projects within mathematics or the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. The awards normally do not exceed three years in length, except in instances which involve the development of new research instrumentation in which case the awards can be made for a maximum of five years. The awards were competitive: only about 43 percent of the 429 proposals received federal funding. Nearly $175 million was requested in the proposals. Engineers at North Carolina State University, for example, will match dollar-for-dollar their $1.45 million NSF grant in order to acquire test bed instrumentation for studies to increase the durability and extend the life of bridges, highways, and buildings. Their research will focus on new materials, fatigue performance, environmental conditions, improved construction processes, and the interaction among building components. Chemists at Yale University will receive $480,000 to supplement the institution's $1.3 million contribution for the acquisition of a high field nuclear magnetic spectrometer which will be crucial to their research in polymers, catalysis, and biology. Geologists and geological engineers at the University of North Dakota will receive $192,000 to acquire multi-disciplinary water quality instrumentation essential to research, education, and engineering design projects in water quality. And University of Texas at Arlington researchers will use their grant on a five-year project to develop instrumentation for high performance robotics used in industry settings. NSF has three mechanisms to support the acquisition and development of research instruments. In addition to the ARI program, instruments are also funded through individual investigator-initiated research grants and through 16 instrumentation programs within the disciplinary areas of NSF. Awards made through the ARI Program are larger than those normally offered through other NSF programs. -end- Attachment: Awards List can be obtained from Michelle Edwards, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, Room 1245. ***For additional information on NSF PR 94-62, contact Michael Fluharty (mfluhart) via E-Mail or at 703/306-1070.*** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have items to be posted to the OLPA News bulletin board please send them to "olpa-news@nsf.gov". To reply to this message from cc:Mail please answer "N" when asked: "Do you wish to retain all the original addresses?" - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- End of Forwarded Message From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Oct 26 12:09:36 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10161; Wed, 26 Oct 94 12:09:31 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27606; 26 Oct 94 12:09 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23663; Wed, 26 Oct 94 09:07:37 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 09:07:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Fall LTER Network News To: PI@lternet.edu, NET@lternet.washington.edu Cc: jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, mAllen@lternet.washington.edu, tCallahan@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORr Just so you all know why this issue of the newsletter has been delayed a little. It was already a couple of weeks behind due to my vacation and some late contribution changes when I returned from the LTER/CC meeting to learn that the University of Washington print plant went on strike! Unfortunately, this will delay final delivery another week. Thanks for your patience. You should see your copies in another couple of weeks at the latest. =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications Coordinator AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 or 685-3091 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) sMartin@LTERnet (Bitnet) =========================================================================== From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Oct 26 14:55:17 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11154; Wed, 26 Oct 94 14:55:11 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01147; 26 Oct 94 14:55 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25383; Wed, 26 Oct 94 11:49:27 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 11:49:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin Sender: Stephanie Martin Reply-To: Stephanie Martin Subject: GLOBE Program Proposal Solicitation To: PI@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR NSF has asked that this message be forwarded widely on LTERnet. Please share the information with your colleagues. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 26 Oct 94 10:10 EST The National Science Foundation (NSF), representing itself, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), invites proposals for participation in the Science and Education component of the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program. These agencies are conducting this solicitation on behalf of the GLOBE Program, a federal interagency program in which the three agencies are participants. Funding provided through this announcement will support a developing international program with an ambitious goal: to create a global network linking the international environmental science community with the pre-college age school children of the world and their teachers. Through partnerships among scientists, educators (from both formal classrooms and informal education programs), and students, the students would be trained to make and transmit to participating scientists a wide range of measurements of key environmental parameters which will be of genuine value in advancing the scientific understanding of global environmental change. Through an enriched science curriculum, students throughout the world would attain a higher degree of science and mathematics literacy, an improved understanding of the nature of the environment in in the part of the world where they live, and a shared sense of the global environment as a complex, dynamic system of which they are a part. Proposals are sought which address one or more of the following GLOBE Program elements: 1) formation of scientist-educator teams which will assist in providing schools with data collection, data analysis, and visualization capabilities in one or more of three key science areas, 2) development of coordinated educational materials in support of the science measurements, 3) involvement of the team in teacher training, and 4) documentation and evaluation of the program as it evolves. Through the review process, priority will be given to applicants who can demonstrate 1) a willingness to incorporate student-derived data into the scientists' own environmental and global change research activities, 2) substantial institutional cost-sharing, and 3) likelihood of demonstrable results within the first year of effort. An Announcement of Opportunity, which contains a detailed description of the competition, will be released on or about October 28, 1994; deadline for receipt of proposals is December 15, 1994. Any award is subject to availability of funds. Proposals will be evaluated by a peer review panel, which will meet in January, 1995. Written requests for copies of the announcement should be directed to Dr. Barrett Rock, The GLOBE Program, 744 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. For information on how to obtain the Announcement of Opportunity electronically from the National Science Foundation, contact: stis@nsf.gov (Internet), 703-306-0214 (voice mail), or 703-306-0090 (TDD). All proposals submitted by responsibile sources will be considered. From jvc@lternet.washington.edu Tue Oct 25 22:45:51 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08440; Tue, 25 Oct 94 22:45:45 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa14092; 25 Oct 94 22:45 EDT Received: from time.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20174; Tue, 25 Oct 94 19:45:28 PDT Received: by time.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03655; Tue, 25 Oct 94 19:44:03 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 19:44:03 -0700 (PDT) From: John Vande Castle Sender: John Vande Castle Reply-To: John Vande Castle Subject: New NET Staff To: LTER Data Management Group , LTER Network Office , LTER Principal Investigators Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR Most of you know Daniel Pommert will be leaving us to follow his wife to the other side of the globe. I know he has helped many of you with one thing or another, but here at NET he has helped all of us with many things on a daily basis. His professional expertise and dedication has advanced all our efforts. We will miss him, but something tells me that he will always be "out there" It wasn't easy, but we found an eager person to replace Daniel at the keyboards. Raymond Bero comes to us from CERL (but not of GRASS fame). He has an amazing background in Unix and Sun machines, especially for a young guy... Please welcome him to LTERland! His Email, is of course rbero@lternet.edu and part of the usual LTER groups including NET@LTERnet.edu Daniel and Raymond will be working tag-team until Daniel's new adventure starts in mid-November. -jvc John Vande Castle, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) - Network Office Univ. of Washington, College of Forest Resources, AR-10, Seattle WA 98195 Phone: 206 543-6249 FAX: 206 543-7295 or 685-0790 Email:jvc@LTERnet.edu From jerry@lternet.edu Wed Oct 26 10:52:06 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09741; Wed, 26 Oct 94 10:52:04 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16265; 26 Oct 94 10:51 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22516; Wed, 26 Oct 94 07:50:37 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 07:50:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Franklin Subject: Re: New NET Staff To: John Vande Castle Cc: LTER Data Management Group , LTER Network Office , LTER Principal Investigators , LAB@lternet.washington.edu, ERG@lternet.washington.edu, JGosz@lternet.washington.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Congratulations to Rudolf and John for finding such a wellqualified replacement! Jerry Franklin On Tue, 25 Oct 1994, John Vande Castle wrote: > > Most of you know Daniel Pommert will be leaving us to follow his wife to > the other side of the globe. I know he has helped many of you with one > thing or another, but here at NET he has helped all of us with many things > on a daily basis. His professional expertise and dedication has advanced > all our efforts. We will miss him, but something tells me that he will > always be "out there" > > It wasn't easy, but we found an eager person to replace Daniel at the > keyboards. Raymond Bero comes to us from CERL (but not of GRASS fame). > He has an amazing background in Unix and Sun machines, especially for a > young guy... Please welcome him to LTERland! His Email, is of course > rbero@lternet.edu and part of the usual LTER groups including NET@LTERnet.edu > > Daniel and Raymond will be working tag-team until Daniel's new adventure > starts in mid-November. > > > -jvc > John Vande Castle, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) - Network Office > Univ. of Washington, College of Forest Resources, AR-10, Seattle WA 98195 > Phone: 206 543-6249 FAX: 206 543-7295 or 685-0790 Email:jvc@LTERnet.edu > > > > From foster@lternet.edu Fri Oct 28 15:36:53 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18333; Fri, 28 Oct 94 15:36:50 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10942; 28 Oct 94 15:36 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13854; Fri, 28 Oct 94 12:35:09 PDT Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 12:35:08 -0700 (PDT) From: David Foster Subject: Technology Committee To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR To: Principal Investigators, LTER sites From: David Foster, Chair of LTER Technology Committee Re: Technology Development in LTER The LTER Technology Committee, working with the Coordinating Committee has a great opportunity to promote the application of technology in ecological studies by making recommendations to NSF concerning technology development in LTER and participating in discussions on directions for future LTER supplements. In order to generate well-informed discussion the Technology Committee has set as a first priority the assessment of the current status of technology of all types (computing, remote sensing, analytical equipment, field sampling devices, etc.) across the LTER Network. In order to translate this information into meaningful and insightful recommendations for technology advancement in LTER and ecological sciences, we need to add a broad array of senior scientists to the LTER Technology Committee at the user and development ends of technology. I would like to solicit your recommendations (and volunteers) for membership on this committee and suggestions concerning directions that we pursue. Thanks very much for your assistance. From jgosz@nsf.gov Tue Nov 1 09:15:41 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27692; Tue, 1 Nov 94 09:15:39 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21601; 1 Nov 94 9:15 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02182; Tue, 1 Nov 94 06:14:28 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA25086 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Tue, 1 Nov 1994 09:14:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199411011414.AA25086@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: smartin@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Tue, 01 Nov 94 09:14:26 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR ............... PCAST NEWS ITEM First Meeting of President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) held its first meeting this week. During one and one-half days of discussion, open to the public, this private-sector committee broadly reviewed the administration's science and technology goals and grappled with how it should provide advice to President Clinton and the cabinet-level National Science and Technology Council (NSTC.) Vice President Gore announced the membership of PCAST on August 3 during the release of the administration's science policy document, "Science in the National Interest." PCAST is co-chaired by John Gibbons, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and John Young, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co., and has seventeen members drawn from academia, private industry, and other institutions (see FYI #130.) Before the meeting started, PCAST members were introduced to Vice President Gore. (President Clinton was preparing for his trip to the Middle East.) Gore welcomed the committee and engaged in an informal discussion touching on the diversity of the members' backgrounds and the perspective that they could provide on issues in science, technology, and society. In opening remarks, Gibbons discussed an over-arching concern of the administration: deficit reduction. Drawing down the deficit will free-up capital to invest in science and technology, Gibbons said. He reaffirmed the administration's view of science and technology as the "centerpiece" of an investment strategy. Gibbons briefly discussed how science funding is changing, citing efforts to reallocate money from defense to civilian budgets, as well as increasing cooperative agreements with private industry. The first hours of the meeting consisted of four ten-minute presentations and brief Q&A by the Associate Directors of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP.) M.R.C. Greenwood, discussing "World Leadership in Basic Science, Mathematics, and Engineering," identified three critical issues for PCAST: "Determining the Investment (including Federal Role; Private Sector Role); Improving Participation and Access in Science; Enhancing Science Education and Public Literacy." Referring to the budget caps on discretionary spending, Greenwood cautioned that there would be "substantial difficulties in maintaining the investment" in science and technology. She spoke of increasing public and private funding of R&D to approximately 3% of the gross domestic product (now 2.6%,) a goal in "Science in the National Interest." One PCAST member asked about the downsizing of the defense budget, and its effect on physics and mathematics funding. Greenwood called this a "critical issue," acknowledging that perceptions about the relevance of fundamental science to the traditional mission agencies may be changing. The challenge, she said, is "how to sustain the physical science base in a rational way." In his presentation on "Technology for Economic Growth," Skip Johns cited budget constraints which necessitate reorienting federal spending, rather than just increasing it. He discussed the Technology Reinvestment Program, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, the National Space Transportation Policy, the National Information Infrastructure, and education/training programs. In response to questions, Johns said "we take metrics very seriously" in determining a program's success. Jane Wales' discussion on "Enhancing National Security and International Cooperation" revolved around applying technology to new defense needs and stability/security. She touched on the need to increase international collaborative efforts, while acknowledging the difficulty of building a lasting domestic consensus for this approach. Wales mentioned India, Russia, China, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina as countries requiring special attention since they have the means of producing weapons of mass destruction. She urged the science and technology community to strengthen its relationships with these and other countries, saying that often such ties were more important than those between governments. The final presentation, entitled "Environmental Quality and Sustainability" was given by Bob Watson. Watson stressed the need to frame issues so that they will not be seen as the environment v. the economy. He spoke of cooperative efforts involving the social sciences, science, and technology for the resolution of environmental problems in a manner that would involve all stakeholders. A White House conference is planned for December. The second half of the day's discussions centered on possible agendas for PCAST. Gibbons started with what he called a "shopping list" of possible areas that could be handled by the committee as a whole or subcommittees. Suggested topics included a strategic R&D priority review, the role of science and technology in global security, and sustainable development. Alluding to the long lead time in the federal budget making process, he said that any PCAST recommendations made by next March or April (a very short time) will be incorporated into the 1997 budget request. Discussion on the second day continued to address how the committee could best spend its time. Announcing that the NSTC's nine committees were each developing strategy papers, Gibbons suggested that a useful activity for PCAST might be forming into small groups and writing brief responses to each strategy paper. (The NSTC committees are: Health, Safety and Food R&D; Information and Communication R&D; National Security; Civilian Industrial Technology; Fundamental Science; International Science, Engineering and Technology; Environment and Natural Resources Research; Transportation R&D; and Education and Training R&D.) Another role Gibbons foresaw was responding to three reviews currently being conducted on the DOD, DOE and NASA federal laboratory systems. This, he said, was a longer-term initiative that the committee could revisit at its next meeting in February, 1995. As a third activity, Gibbons said the OSTP staff would work with the committee over time to refine the list of issues the committee had put forward as important (education, environment, investment, health, and national security), and try to identify useful tasks relating to those issues. From vancleve@gis.lter.alaska.edu Thu Nov 3 15:33:15 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07313; Thu, 3 Nov 94 15:33:10 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09382; 3 Nov 94 15:33 EST Received: from gis.lter.alaska.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06007; Thu, 3 Nov 94 12:30:36 PST Received: from aspen.lter.alaska.edu by gis.lter.alaska.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19508; Thu, 3 Nov 94 11:28:17 AKS From: vancleve@gis.lter.alaska.edu To: PI@lternet.edu Subject: SUPPORT MEMO FROM LTER SITES Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 21:29:18 GMT Message-Id: <9411032129.123C54@aspen.lter.alaska.edu> X-Mailer: SelectMAIL 1.0 Status: OR TO: LTER Site Principal Investigators FROM: K. Van Cleve Principal Investigator BNZ LTER SUBJ.: Request for written support from LTER colleagues DATE: November 2, 1994 The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) recently has been conducting a major academic program review. Part of the review involves consideration of the disposition of formula funds (McIntire-Stennis funds) that come to the Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station (AFES) at UAF. Over the years we have received substantial support for the BNZ LTER program from the MS funds, via proposals that addressed questions dealing with structure and function of northern boreal forest ecosystems. This has been the basis for much of the early research that supported our successful funding of the BNZ LTER site in 1987 and renewal in 1992. These funds, granted to the Forest Soils Laboratory, continue to provide major logistic, infrastructure and analytical support services to LTER investigators and the UAF community in general. We are concerned that loss of this support will jeopardize our competitive standing come 1998 and renewal time and send a signal to NSF that the UAF administration is not committed over the long haul to support our LTER efforts. The attached letter is one version of a supporting letter we are asking you to send to the following individuals. You can modify as you see fit. Some of you may not support the use of formula funds in the way we have been able to use them. That may determine whether you can suppport our position. The statewide University President, President Komisar, will make recommendations to the Board of Regents by the end of this month (November). An immediate response from you to him and Chancellor Wadlow and Provost Keating could greatly strengthen our position with regard to this vital support. Faxing your response on your institutional letterhead would be the best. Fax and telephone numbers are appended. Thanks very much in advance. University of Alaska System President Jerome Komisar (907) 474-6342 University of Alaska Fairbanks Chancellor Joan K. Wadlow (907) 474-7225 University of Alaska Fairbanks Provost John P. Keating (907) 474-6725 Knowledge of proposed program changes that are currently underway at the Uni-versity of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) are starting to circulate to the outside world. Some of these potential changes have us very worried about the UAF institutional support for the National Science Foundation funded Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program administered through the School of Agriculture and Land Resource Management (SALRM) at UAF. The LTER program is a national program with eighteen sites in the US and Antarctica. The LTER program has an INTERNATIONAL reputation for the quality of both its pro-gram direction and the research carried out at each of the sites. The program in place at UAF represents the only boreal forest LTER installation in the United States. The establishment of a LTER research site requires a commitment from the scientists involved for a number of years prior to initial funding. The work that preceded the initial LTER funding at UAF, in 1987, represented a 25 year commitment to developing an understanding of the ecology of the boreal forest in the vicinity of Fairbanks. This work to a large extent was carried out with the use of McIntire Stennis formula funding to the Forest Soils Laboratory within SALRM. Without this source of funding the establishment and subsequent measurements in a series of research plots would have only been temporary. At this point in time there is approximately a 30 year data base on climate and tree growth in a set of research sites near the LTER site at Fairbanks. The LTER program is helping to add to this data set in additional sites and hopefully, eventually with the same long term perspective. This information base is of substantial significance, in the context of impacts of climate and societal change on renewable resources in the north. It is an invaluable contribution to sustanined forest ecosystem management in the northern boreal forest of interior Alaska. In addition to the quality of the research being proposed for LTER funding, there is a requirement for institutional support at the site of the research. This is a necessity to help verify that the institution at which the program will be funded also has a long-term com-mitment to the research. This commitment should extent beyond the careers of individual scientists and administrators at the institution. One of those commitments is the reduction in overhead costs at the institution. In addition at Land Grant schools across the country their is also a need to support the LTER program through appropriate use of available for-mula funds. At UAF formula funding increases the amount of money available for LTER research by 50%. This results in increased capability of the LTER program at UAF and enhancement of the laboratory facilities on the UAF campus. The support and quality of work that is accomplished through the Forest Soils Laboratory does have a national rep-utation. In addition, the formula funding agency also receives a 200% increase in the work that can be carried out in support of the formula funded programs. Significant changes to the structure of formula fund distribution at UAF would seriously cast doubt on the long-term institutional commitment to the LTER program and significantly reduce the potential for continued NSF funding of the LTER program at UAF. We urge you to seriously consider the implications of these types of changes by talking with Dr. Van Cleve the principal investigator of the LTER program at UAF. From glwheel@comp.uark.edu Tue Nov 8 22:25:36 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25307; Tue, 8 Nov 94 22:25:32 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25618; 8 Nov 94 22:25 EST Received: from comp.uark.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11206; Tue, 8 Nov 94 19:23:16 PST Received: (from glwheel@localhost) by comp.uark.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id VAA17258; Tue, 8 Nov 1994 21:22:08 -0600 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 21:22:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Garland L. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Sustainable forestry in S. To: Kevin.Martin@mmc.mcdermott.com Cc: ecolog-l@umdd.umd.edu, forest@nic.funet.fi, pi@lternet.washington.edu In-Reply-To: <"Macintosh */PRMD=MCDERMOTT/ADMD=MCI/C=US/"@MHS> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR do nothing. If $$ are not much of an interest then given time the whole system will be native. On Fri, 4 Nov 1994 Kevin.Martin@mmc.mcdermott.com wrote: > > Worldtalk 400 Sustainable forestry in S. Mississippi > Some friends have 80 acres of land in S. Mississippi. Currently it is planted > with plantation pine for harvest in about 7 years. They wish to have the land > make the transition to a sustainable system with native species etc. They are > not specifically interested in the $$$ value of the harvest. > > I am looking for contacts/information etc that would help them in the > transition. > > Regards, Kevin Martin > > > From jcallaha@nsf.gov Thu Nov 10 09:06:31 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01990; Thu, 10 Nov 94 09:06:30 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26230; 10 Nov 94 9:06 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19457; Thu, 10 Nov 94 05:36:14 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA26431 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 10 Nov 1994 08:36:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199411101336.AA26431@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Announcement Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 08:36:07 EST From: "James T. Callahan" Status: OR Folks- Please pass along to their many friends and colleagues the news that Liz Blood and Bill Michener are the proud new parents of Alissa, an almost 8-pound daughter, born on this past Tuesday, November 8. Parents and offspring all doing well. They expect to be home by the weekend and will, surely, be checking e-mail regularly. Tom Callahan From jgosz@nsf.gov Fri Nov 11 09:41:30 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07163; Fri, 11 Nov 94 09:41:29 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17464; 11 Nov 94 9:41 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08049; Fri, 11 Nov 94 06:40:53 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA19763 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 11 Nov 1994 09:40:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199411111440.AA19763@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 09:40:47 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR First Impressions: Impact of Election on Science Funding and Policy Making predictions about the impact of the election on future science budgets and policies is difficult. The election is certain to have profound effects on the how Washington does business. At the same time, there will be a familiarity in how Congress sets the federal science budget, and determines science policy. There is talk on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue about cooperation next year on initiatives such as welfare reform. Only time will tell whether this will occur; many observers are predicting gridlock. Although gridlock may prevent passage of new policy initiatives (such as the President's investment strategy), the appropriations process funding governmental operations will continue. By October 1, 1995, the Congress must enact thirteen appropriations bills that respond to the President's budget request. Although political brinkmanship may come into play as the President and Congress struggle to meet this deadline, in the end, the appropriations bills will be passed. Science funding and policy have generally enjoyed bipartisan support. The House science committee has long touted its bipartisan approach to legislation, which is also true of other science-related authorizing committees. An absence of partisan bickering has characterized the VA, HUD, independent agencies appropriations subcommittees and the energy and water development appropriations subcommittees. Battles about funding for mega-projects such as the SSC or space station have not been along strict party lines, either in committee or on the floor. This approach will probably continue. At the same time, there are two over-arching factors that will importantly affect science-related budgets and policy. The first is the change-over in committee chairs and staff. Republican majorities in each chamber ensure their control of committees. No longer will Rep. George Brown (who won with 51% of the vote) and Senator Barbara Mikulski have direct control over their committee's and subcommittee's agendas and legislation. Their Democratic committee staffs, who besides outnumbering their Republican counterparts, have largely been responsible for the drafting of legislation, planning of hearings, and floor strategy, will become minority staff. This shift will be especially important in the appropriations process, which generally relegates minority participation to a minor role. The way in which Congress does business could also change. The Republican Contract with America pledges a cut in the number of House committees, and a one-third reduction in committee staff. This contract also states that the new majority party will "work to enact additional budget savings," and a "balanced budget/tax limitation amendment." Where the new Republican appropriations chairs and their staffs will make budget cuts in science and technology programs has yet to be seen. All of this will have to get underway quickly: Congress reconvenes on January 3, when the Republican majority has pledged to pass major reforms in the committee system and in budgeting procedures. It is more important than ever to find ways to sell our science. The Network Office will be heavily involved. We will need your help. From jgosz@nsf.gov Mon Nov 14 16:39:59 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16221; Mon, 14 Nov 94 16:39:58 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22756; 14 Nov 94 16:39 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23295; Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:29:36 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA13647 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 14 Nov 1994 16:29:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199411142129.AA13647@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 16:28:59 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR I now have a copy of the Republican "Contract with America" document and thought you would be interested in some of the details. The plan does not include enough spending cuts to pay for its proposed tax cuts and balance the budget. Indeed, according to the Republicans' own estimates, the net effect of the tax breaks and spending cuts in the contract itself is to increase the deficit by $148 billion over five years. To help reduce their shortfall, the Republicans offer a list of "examples of possible offsets" totalling $176 billion over five years. The following list is from a much larger list totalling $176 billion. Each value represents the total to be cut over the five year period. $ in billions Restructure the State Department 1.160 Restructure the Agency for International Dev. 1.310 Freeze the Peace Corps 0.086 Reduce Educational & Cultural Exchange Programs 0.276 Reduce Funding for Energy Technology Development 2.139 Consolidate Other Agencies into Federal Land Mgmt. 3.226 Abolish Bureau of Mines 0.872 Abolish Geological Survey 3.261 Abolish National Biological Survey 0.139 Downsize Minerals Management Service 0.485 Restructure Bureau of Reclamation 0.427 Reform Bureau of Indian Affairs 0.215 Impose a Moratorium on Land Purchases 1.066 Improve Forest Management Efficiency 0.155 Freeze funding for NOAA 0.805 De-Emphasize Permanence in Superfund Clean-ups 1.140 Eliminate funding for Kennedy Center for Arts 0.102 Reduce Funding for Resource Conservation and Develop. 0.610 Restructure Non-Farm Service Agencies 0.535 Reduce Funding for Cooperative State Research Serv. 0.331 Extension Service Refocus 0.505 Reduce Agriculture Research Service 0.830 Reform Farmers Home Administration 0.423 Reduce Spending for the High Performance Computing 1.230 Eliminate the Advanced Technology Program 0.819 Eliminate the Interstate Commerce Commission 0.188 Reduce the Overhead Rate on Federally Sponsored University Research 1.620 Limit rate of Growth for NSF 0.346 That should be enough to tickle your interest, whatever it may be! Here is the proposal language to Limit the Rate of Growth of the National Science Foundation: Description: The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides funding for research activities in the areas of biological sciences, computer and information sciences, engineering, geosciences, mathematical and physical sciences, polar research and behavioral sciences. This proposal would restrict the rate of growth in the NSF to 1 percent less than the rate of inflation. Savings: The proposal would save $30 million in budget authority and $12 million in outlays in the first year, and $476 million in BA and $346 million over five years, compared with the baseline. Keep tuned!! From jgosz@nsf.gov Tue Nov 22 09:31:36 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15018; Tue, 22 Nov 94 09:31:35 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07711; 22 Nov 94 9:31 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22604; Tue, 22 Nov 94 06:30:59 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA25152 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:30:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199411221430.AA25152@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 09:30:50 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Subject: Gopher for Political Information FYI--I received the following information on the Biodiversity Information Center listserver. It is a useful database of information on political matters, Federal agencies, budgets, etc. The following message was written in the context of how to get a copy of the Republican Contract with America, but the database has lots of other interesting items. For those interested, the http format is gopher://garnet.berkeley.edu:1250/11/.political/.party/.repub/.contract The server has many interesting political discourse subjects. To access the higher level menus, just go to gopher://garnet.berkeley.edu:1250/1 and that will take you to the Electronic Democracy Information Network (EDIN). From bmilne@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Nov 28 15:34:46 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03837; Mon, 28 Nov 94 15:34:45 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26188; 28 Nov 94 15:34 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23753; Mon, 28 Nov 94 12:30:28 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03697; Mon, 28 Nov 1994 13:29:22 -0700 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 13:29:22 -0700 From: Bruce Milne Message-Id: <9411282029.AA03697@sevilleta.unm.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Status: ORS Two Post Doctoral Positions Sevilleta LTER The University of New Mexico Enclosed is the official announcement of two positions with the Sevilleta LTER (Bruce Milne, Principal Investigator). UNM hiring practices require that applicants follow the enclosed instructions and mail a CV and cover letter to one of the addresses listed below. Please make reference to the requisition number and job title in the cover letter. Ideally the successful applicants will begin work in January 1995. SUMMARY OF DUTIES: Two post-doctoral ecosystem/landscape positions to implement spatially explicit models of: (1) energy and water balance for the 100,000 ha Sevilleta LTER site, and (2) ecosystem processes of production and decomposition. The above statement reflects the general duties considered necessary to describe the principle functions of the position identified and shall not be considered inclusive of all work requirements that may be inherent in the position. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT: Ph.D. in Biology, Earth Sciences or related field. Two (2) years related post baccalaureate experience. Publication record. Modeling, Geographic Information Systems, data base, UNIX, C and/or Fortran programming experience. DESIRABLE SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES: TDR experience. Three (3) years post-baccalaureate experience. JOB TITLE: SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE STAFF II REQUISITION NUMBER: 941964*A DEPARTMENT: BIOLOGY APPLICATION PERIOD: November 28, 1994 through December 16, 1994 EEOC JOB GROUP:3 STARTING SALARY:30,000/YR GRADE: 99 Full-Time Position/Regular TO APPLY: Applications/resume must be received by Human Resources Office at 1717 Roma NE, Albuquerque, NM or Health Sciences Center, Med Bldg. 2, Room 101 North Campus, Albuquerque, NM 87131 no later than 5:00PM on December 16, 1994. Resumes must list employment dates by month/year and must be accompanied by a cover letter with an original signature. Include names and phone numbers of three references. Applicants must indicate the requisition number (941964*A) and job title (SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE STAFF II) on the cover letter. The University of New Mexico is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Educator From nadkarnn@elwha.evergreen.edu Tue Nov 29 12:15:02 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08149; Tue, 29 Nov 94 12:15:00 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03764; 29 Nov 94 12:14 EST Received: from elwha.evergreen.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01278; Tue, 29 Nov 94 09:14:41 PST Received: by elwha.evergreen.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA06800; Tue, 29 Nov 94 09:14:11 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 09:14:11 -0800 (PST) From: Nalini Nadkarni Sender: Nalini Nadkarni Reply-To: Nalini Nadkarni Subject: forest canopy structure/database workshop To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: students@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR Designing the Forest Canopy Researcher's Workbench Computer Tools for the 21st Century March 15-18, 1995 An NSF-Sponsored Workshop -- Call for Participation The Problem: Forest canopy communities are important in maintaining the diversity, resiliency, and functioning of the ecosystems they inhabit. However, no field protocols or analytical methods for studying the underlying structure and spatial distribution of canopy-dwelling organisms are as yet generally accepted. With both interest and data from new access techniques increasing dramatically, canopy researchers are recognizing the need for tools to manage and analyze their data. These ecologists need to deal with: (1) new types of data, (2) a great deal more data, and (3) the necessity of sharing data over time among researchers with both similar and separate research questions. The Solution: In July 1993, an interdisciplinary team was awarded a two-year planning grant from the Database Activities Program of the National Science Foundation to collect ideas, approaches, and software on managing, processing and interpreting 3-D spatial data for canopy researchers. The co-PIs, Nalini Nadkarni (The Evergreen State College) and Geoffrey Parker (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center) are bringing together forest canopy researchers ("domain scientists"), quantitative scientists and computer scientists to establish methods to collect, store, display, analyze, and interpret 3-D spatial data relating to tree crowns and forest canopies. With computer scientist Judy Cushing and quantitative scientist David Ford, they are compiling research questions, examining potentially applicable information models and software tools already in use in canopy research and allied fields, and developing conceptual models and recommendations to address analysis and information needs of forest canopy researchers. The Workshop: A crucial step in this process is a 3-day workshop where domain scientists from forest canopy and allied fields, spatial information specialists and computer scientists will work together to suggest solutions to the canopy researcher's data management and analysis problems. Our objective is to deal creatively and realistically with analyzing and interpreting 3- D tree canopy data at many spatial scales. The workshop will be informal and intense. After introductory presentations and round-table discussions on research issues facing canopy researchers, other domain scientists and computer scientists will show how similar problems are being addressed in allied fields. During subsequent workshop sessions, participants will break into small interdisciplinary groups focused on particular areas of canopy research. Workshop session summaries will be presented to and discussed by the whole workshop, and workshop findings will be disseminated in writing to all participants. Expected workshop outcomes include: identification of potential analysis tools, software and ancillary data sources for canopy researchers, a draft information model, exploration of common protocols for data collection and exchange, and identification of development tasks and research questions. The venue for the workshop is The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. At the southern tip of Puget Sound (60 miles south of Seattle), Evergreen is highly reputed for its innovative interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning. An optional field trip Saturday, March 18, will involve traveling to a canopy study site (a giant construction crane in Wind River, Washington, about 3 hours from Olympia). Informal discussions will continue both at the site and Carson Hot Springs. Spouses are invited. We will provide child care for a nominal fee. Activities in the field will wind down about 4pm Saturday. The workshop will run from 6pm, Wednesday, March 15 to 6pm Friday, March 17. Evening sessions are scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday. A registration fee of about $150 will cover meals and transportation between the hotel and Evergreen. Transportation from Seattle-Tacoma Airport can be arranged for a nominal fee. Accommodations will be about $65 per night. Computer Tools for the 21st Century March 15-18, 1995, Olympia, Washington Workshop Application To apply to attend the workshop, send this application form along with a one-page position paper on your current research. The paper should describe your current research (citing two or three current publications), and indicate how your work relates to data management and analysis problems facing canopy researchers. A limited number of NSF travel awards are available; please indicate if you are interested in being considered for one. Workshop invitations and notifications of support will be sent by mid December 1994. Feel free to consult workshop organizers Judy Cushing or Nalini Nadkarni for suggestions on your position paper (cushing@cse.ogi.edu and nadkarn@elwha.evergreen.edu). Last Name: ______________________________________ First Name(s): ______________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ Field (Discipline):____________________________________ Research Area(s):____________________________________ Institution: ______________________________________ Address: ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Phone: _________________ Fax: ________________ email: ______________________________________ _____ I am requesting an NSF travel grant to attend the workshop. _____ I will probably attend the Saturday excursion and seminar at Wind River. _____ I will definitely not attend the Saturday excursion and seminar at Wind River. _____ I will likely bring a guest to Wind River. _____ Children (indicate how many and ages) will accompany us to Wind River. ______________________________________ Email or mail this application and your white paper to: Julie Moberg, Canopy Workshop Logistics mobergj@elwha.evergreen.edu LAB II, The Evergreen State College Olympia, WA 98505 From nadkarnn@elwha.evergreen.edu Tue Nov 29 12:15:07 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08155; Tue, 29 Nov 94 12:15:05 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03782; 29 Nov 94 12:15 EST Received: from elwha.evergreen.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01277; Tue, 29 Nov 94 09:14:16 PST Received: by elwha.evergreen.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA06794; Tue, 29 Nov 94 09:13:46 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 09:13:45 -0800 (PST) From: Nalini Nadkarni Subject: International Canopy Network To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: students@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CANOPY NETWORK (ICAN) Participants at the recent International Canopy Symposium at The Marie Selby Botanical Gardens in Sarasota, Florida, reached a consensus to establish the International Canopy Network (ICAN). This organization exists to facilitate communication among indiv iduals and institutions concerned with research, education, and conservation of organisms and interactions in forest canopies. ICAN brings together activities formerly carried out by the NSF-funded Canopy Research Network (CRN), which facilitated communication among canopy researchers, and The Canopy Institute (TCI), a not-for-profit organization to facilitate conservation throug h interpretation of canopy research to non-scientists. Uniting these two organizations combines the structure of a tax-exempt corporation with 501(c)3 status and the networking capacity of the CRN. By including researchers, educators, conservationists, an d arborists under one "crown", links among these groups will be facilitated. Currently, the Board of Directors consists of six members who represent the constituent fields of research, education, conservation, and arboriculture. The Directors serve two-year terms and meet semi-annually, or as needed. The Board of Directors will ex pand or change to reflect the interests of the ICAN. We will also form an Advisory Council, which will consist of up to twenty members who will take part in decisions on an ad hoc basis. Some of the current core activities of the ICAN include maintenance of the email bulletin board, circulation of the quarterly newsletter (titled "What's Up?"), maintenance and expansion of a citations bibliographic database on aspects of canopy science, a nd the researcher directory. Future activities include the initiation of an images library (slides and video), a compilation of a directory of museum collections of arboreal organisms, and creation of interpretive posters for school children. Individuals may take on projects of interest to them, and share results and products with the rest of ICAN. For example, two individuals are investigating the use of MOSAIC for communication of text and graphical materials for those electronically connected to the ne twork. Activities until now have been supported by a National Science Foundation grant, which will terminate in 1995. We therefore need to set up a subscribership so the organization can be self-supporting in the long term. We are now calculating costs, and anti cipate that an annual membership will be between $20 and $50, with a sliding scale to accommodate all participants. Details on subscribing will follow in the January, 1995 newsletter. At this time, send in suggestions, nominations for the Advisory Council (including yourself), and volunteer for any activity that would contribute to the network. We look forward to your input. ______________________________________________________________________ For more information on the ICAN, you may communicate directly to us: Nalini Nadkarni (nadkarnn@elwha.evegreen.edu) or Joel Clement (clementj@elwha.evergreen.edu). To communicate to the network, type to canopy@lternet.edu. From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Nov 29 20:54:34 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10204; Tue, 29 Nov 94 20:54:30 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09876; 29 Nov 94 20:54 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06658; Tue, 29 Nov 94 17:52:28 PST Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 17:52:28 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Sender: Stephanie Martin Reply-To: Stephanie Martin Subject: LTER/CC Minutes To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: ORp Here are the minutes from the recent LTER/CC meeting. They will also be sent via regular mail to the extended PI list. Please let me know of any corrections for the permanent record. I apologize for the delay in getting them to you, as well as the length--it was a productive meeting! Thank you, Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office =========================================================================== M I N U T E S LTER Coordinating Committee Meeting October 19-21, 1994 Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory AFTERNOON, CLOSED SESSION, OCTOBER 19, 1994 In attendance: LTER site representatives (see attached list-regular mailing only), Network Office staff (Martin, Nottrott, Vande Castle), NSF representatives (James Gosz & Mike Allen, DEB) NSF Report (James Gosz, DEB) Reorganization There are significant, positive changes taking place at the National Science Foundation. The number of program officers will increase up to 60 or 70 total, with one permanent position (Tom Callahan) to provide a memory within the system. Two permanent people each will remain in Population Biology, Ecological Studies, Ecology, and Long-Term Projects. Of the Long-Term Projects positions, one will deal with research collections, the other with survey and inventory. During discussions at NSF, it fell out that the LTER-LMER projects person would be a rotator, a development that could have distinct advantages. Tom Callahan has been fighting for LTER virtually by himself (and LTER has been the only program whose budget has consistently been increased); another person is needed to focus on interagency aspects and develop linkages with the systematics community. Thomas Dillenwald (?) and Mike Allen (for another year) will work together to maximize memory and new ideas in rotator and permanent positions assigned to Long-Term Studies. Gosz solicited suggestions for good candidates to be scheduled in advance, allowing them time to "get their lives together." DEB is trying to develop a longer-range plan and a mechanism for identifying the best people. Candidates should be visionaries who have broad backgrounds and training. These will not just be "proposal jacket processing jobs"; rotators will be involved in developing science initiatives with input from the community. While two-year rotators are preferred, NSF will accept those available for just one. A search is currently being conducted to fill James Estes' position. Scott Collins' position (Ecological Studies) will become permanent. Gosz urged the LTER community to take advantage of the opportunity these changes provide by taking a more active role in proposing initiatives and guidelines and contributing program officers. The LTER Network is now better organized, more mature, and better able to respond to such changes as opportunities. He noted that the scientific expertise needs to come from within the community, not the agency. He also cautioned that the LTER model is being closely scrutinized across agencies; anything that looks like an entitlement will be viewed with suspicion. Budget (Gosz) Biological Sciences doesn't yet have a concrete budget, due to the changes at NSF and the "new" way the agency is doing business. Gosz anticipated that within a month he might know about any augmentation or supplemental opportunities. He distributed an invitation from Survey and Inventory to submit proposals under LTREB that, while not a formal program solicitation, indicates that the program will be developing proposals to augment sites. He noted that several such opportunities exist for LTER with the heightened interest in biodiversity and sustainability across programs--although these concepts may be defined differently. He urged the sites, as they look ahead to working on site proposals, to anticipate cross-site or augmentation competitions of some type along biodiversity themes. There will not be a request for proposals; word will probably come via electronic mail. This is a standard program that entertains proposals in mid-November and mid-May. (Jim Estes is currently the relevant program officer.) Data Sharing Relative to Current Policy (Gosz) It is now grant proposal policy at NSF to instruct panelists to look for data sharing components; proposals that don't include data sharing will be denied. The policy reads that NSF-funded projects should "share data, samples, physical collections, software, and inventions." While NSF has in the past expected data to be shared, this was never enforced. LTER should take a leadership role in providing the broader scientific community access to datasets on-line. The global change research program is using new language about what is expected from grantees who get funded--schedules and plans for data turnover to a publicly accessible archive must be submitted. Although there is still no actual enforcement mechanism, NSF will use "embarrassment and shame"--and program officers with long memories. Tony Janetos reports that for NASA's field campaigns potential PIs were told that they must contribute to a public archive. The community accepted this proviso, and no one's data got scooped. Gosz noted that the LTER data managers had taken an important step forward on this issue at their September meeting. Although the associated issue of obtaining credit for publishing datasets was not resolved, he noted that on-line LTER datasets would provide a visual model that could indirectly shake loose more funding with a feedback to more models, and so on. James Brunt, Data Management Committee Chair, reported that there had been a lot of discussion about putting datasets on-line since the September meeting. A table indicating what all sites are doing has been completed, and a preliminary review shows there is no technical reason that sites can't comply. The datasets will be available and queriable on-line to the LTER community for some scientific purpose, and they will include descriptions of metadata standards, access system, and technical capabilities that allow participation. There is more involved in developing the kind of system that would be accessible to anyone in the scientific community. Legal issues will need to be addressed, as will the potential for misuse of data. An informal poll of the sites as to whether they were "on track" in putting one favorite dataset on-line revealed that most are. Information on which datasets were initially being put on-line was collected (see list attached-regular mailing only). Augmentation Competition "Post Mortem"(Allen) Two LTER site augmentations have been awarded, one to North Temperate Lakes (Tim Kratz-Upper Midwest Lakes and Their Landscapes: 1800-2100) and the other to Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory (Judy Meyer-Causes and consequences of land cover change in the Southern Appalachians). Responses to other proposals will be back soon. These first two augmentations will be extremely important in generating more and they will need the Network's support. NSF realizes the need to extend the opportunity to rest of the Network, but it is too early to say how many, or if any, more sites will be similarly "ramped up." The panel felt that in terms of general direction all proposals were good, but the program is money-limited. Many strong proposals sought to expand present work to social and economic aspects. The two awarded thought more in terms of biodiversity. Some PIs expressed concern that these first augmented sites will gear up with a bang but, without a longer-range commitment, could stall out in six months. Allen acknowledged that NSF will probably have to make decisions on subsequent awards before any information is back from first two. It was suggested that this is probably a test to see if the Network can work effectively with the two sites funded, and if the two can help promote the idea of augmentation, further reinforcing NSF leadership's view of LTER as a flagship program. NTL and CWT were asked to place their proposals on-line for Network access. (Abstracts will be provided in the Spring 1995 issue of Network News.) JF pointed out that using sites as expert systems, stepping outside to interpret on a larger scale, will very much be the wave of the future in funding for science. He reminded the group what an extraordinary opportunity LTER has and will have in being participatory in the program's future. He noted that while these opportunities can sometimes be painful, the payoff can be monumental. Network Office Site Review (Allen) Mike Allen reported that NSF conducted the first on-site review of the Network Office (NET) September 20-21. While the review is not yet completed, in general the review was quite positive. Concerns included whether there would be appropriate support and space at the University of Washington. JF will be using the results of the review to develop the Network Office cooperative agreement, which will replace the grant as funding mechanism. The review addressed two areas: (1) Was NET accomplishing its goals, and (2) What should NET accomplish? As the Network matures, there is a need to reassess directions. AFTERNOON SESSION Network Office Program & Budget Jerry Franklin reported that the full-fledged September LTER Network Office (NET) site review, originally being approached as a pre-proposal discussion, came as a surprise for which there was little time to prepare. The morning of the review, staff learned that the next proposal was to be prepared prior to negotiation for not two, but six years. The new funding mechanism for NET will be a cooperative agreement, along the lines of the University of Michigan model. He noted that cooperative agreements must abide by the same guidelines as site proposals and circulated copies of the draft proposal for site comment. He also reminded representatives that support for NET is not from the competitive pot available to the LTER sites, but from a combination of Environmental Biology, International Programs and Polar Programs sources. If not to NET, these funds would go to other programs, not LTER. NET will prepare an annual report for NSF and draft a proposal for the next year's activities, to be submitted to NSF after PI input prior to the fall LTER/CC meeting. There will be an annual site review and a national advisory committee, and NSF and NET will negotiate an agreement subject to an independent panel and Network review. Following review, which will probably occur at two- to three-year intervals, the Office could be moved. The outside review strongly reinforced that NET should not be located at one of sites or at the Synthesis Center. At least for a significant time, it is not desirable for either group to lose identity to the other. By the end of 1995, the new Chair and Executive Director should be fully on board and will be revisiting this issue as/if it arises. For this proposal, the University of Washington has made commitments of additional space, as well as contributions to the salaries of John Vande Castle, the new Executive Director, and support for two research assistants, and the GIS Laboratory manager. PIs were asked to provide advise to JF within a week in two areas: (1) continuance of work done in past and the expansion as per the LTER/CC's decisions of last spring--recruiting an Executive Director, expanding the committee structure, and providing additional support for the Chair--and (2) what workshops/synthetic activities NET should be involved in over the next two years in some way? In general, NET workshops should not clearly stand alone as separate proposals, or they may not stand up to the peer-review process. Sites were also asked to consider: * Should NET be the permanent home for "orphan datasets" (such as NIN's). * A comparison of RS/GIS datasets is proposed with U.K.'s Ecological Change Network. Should we look at a broader array of technical innovation, such as measurement technologies, beyond just storage and compiling? * Funds are requested for outreach activities associated with beginning a global network (ILTER), defining relationships to other sites and networks, and developing internationally, ($250,000-$350,000 total--25%-30% of the budget). What level of outreach and involvement is appropriate? In the discussion on possible workshops that followed, it was proposed that a mechanism to revisit core areas (how do they help/impede?) be identified, and that a series of question-driven workshops to establish standards for each core area be supported. JF noted that if the group came forward with alternatives to the core areas NSF might entertain substitutes; simply trashing them wouldn't fly. Any substitute would need to tie the sites together as the core areas have. The group was asked to think further on the issue, and consider the next All Scientists Meeting as the possible forum for five core-driven workshops to identify intellectual standards. National & International Outreach-Who Will Participate? JF noted that the collaborative activity initiated under ILTER is not intended to replace the valuable scientist-to-scientist interactions that have occurred in the past. The Network Office (NET) will likely become a clearinghouse of such activity involving the sites. We want many flowers to bloom, but we need to know where the flowers are. The developing international network has begun to look at the same problems that LTER has as a network--namely, who will participate? ILTER will probably work to develop national or regional network nodes, eventually de-emphasizing NET's central role. JF charged the group to develop a vision of how LTER should relate to both national and international agencies and groups. Through what critera do we judge "appropriate" partners? Is it enough to simply have a shared goal or mission? We are beginning to use capabilities as a filter. Does a given site have the capability to communicate and exchange data as we do as LTER site? Should LTER define different levels or grades of affiliation or participation? One level might be to encourage outside sites to regularly participate on the DM Committee. AFTERNOON CLOSED SESSION One representative per site met to vote on the nomination of James Gosz for the next chair of the LTER Network. A role call indicated that all were present except Niwot and Cedar Creek. [Seastedt sent in a vote for Niwot prior to the meeting.] Nomination of Next LTER/CC Chair--James Gosz Unanimously Elected Following the procedure adopted by the Coordinating Committee last (LTER/CC) spring, the Executive Committee solicited nominations and contacted candidates for the next LTER/CC Chair. Fifteen individuals were nominated, all LTER scientists. Both LMER and LTREB PIs were contacted, but no additional nominations were offered. Three nominees--Gosz, Hayden and Magnuson--received more than one nomination. Of the nominees, three indicated an interest. Magnuson and Hayden both indicated a willingness to serve, but because of pressing site responsibilities preferred not to be considered at this time. The Executive Committee considered James Gosz' qualifications and his interest and ability to devote a significant amount of time to the position over the next several years, and unanimously recommended him to the full Committee. The nomination was seconded by Judy Meyer. Following discussion the group agreed that Gosz' leadership style would suit the future needs of the Network well, and the vote was unanimously in favor. JF will act as executive director for the next year, maintaining ILTER chairmanship during the transition period, eventually passing the responsibility on to Gosz. LTER/CC MEETING, THURSDAY OCTOBER 20, 1994 NSF News & Funding Situation (Jim Gosz & Mike Allen) As a result of last year's push in Congress for NSF to do more strategic research in areas of national need, a long-range strategic plan was requested from the agency. The $3.2 billion budget is up $200 million over last year, although the amount targeted for research activities is below that requested in the Administration's budget. A $50 million increase from $100 million has been requested for research infrastructure (including research equipment). This is the year to submit for research instrumentation in general. The Foundation has identified eight strategic themes, several of interest to LTER. These themes are cross-divisional and multi-disciplinary and include Biodiversity, Water and Watersheds, Environmental Technology, and Research Management. (The last two are particularly likely to result in opportunities; special announcements are currently being written.) While DEB would like to offer funds for augmentation, cross-site work and internationalization, opportunities are more likely to be in terrestrial ecology, trace gas or complex experiments of multiple interacting factors and atmosphere-terrestrial feedbacks (including wetlands and streams). When the budget shakedown occurs, they hope to get word out about opportunities electronically with longer lead time than in the past. PIs were urged to be thinking now what shape these might take. Biodiversity approaches might be to improve fundamental understanding from genes to landscapes, poorly-known habitats and species, adaptation of organisms to environmental changes (human-economic aspects included), and water-watersheds approaches to improve our predictive understanding of fluxes, changes to water systems, knowledge to develop mitigating strategies, and sustainable economic development--all of which are directly relevant to LTER and are broad enough to include much of what LTER is interested in doing. Due to the division reorganization that has resulted in the Long-Term Projects person being a rotator, LTER has an important opportunity to identify someone with strengths in the areas of restoration and bioremediation. Standing Network Committees/Committee Structure (Committee Structure) At the last meeting, the LTER/CC decided that it wanted to support an expanded committee structure to encourage more LTER investigators to become actively involved in creating Network policies and programs. JF noted that the first task of each committee is to propose a charter, then to decide how chairs should be selected and membership formed, what rights and privileges members should have, the scope and nature of activities to be undertaken, and what should be the financial commitment. Currently, the Network Office budget includes support for an annual Data Managers (DM) meeting at a level of $40,000, including a regular meeting and workshop. There are also two proposals under development for workshops in the technology area, and the climate group, which has a supplemental grant that does not include general committee support, submitted a proposal at the meeting. Following a recommendation from the Executive Committee, the DM Committee has proposed that an information management group of three to four principal investigators attend the annual DMs meeting to ensure that Network data management activities are guided by those involved in developing and designing the site research programs. In general discussion on committee structure, the point was made that the Network doesn't need a separate committee for each problem, but a committee to focus on approaches. It was also noted that committees should be able to meet via electronic means between annual meetings or regular LTER/CC meetings. Before inviting current chairs to report on their committees' activities, JF opened discussion on how committee development had been progressing. Among the suggestions: (1) committees should form a steering committees or "guidance group" which includes members who do not attend LTER/CC meetings; (2) committee chairs should be LTER/CC members, so that activities are led by the sites; (3) committee steering groups should be comprised of lead PIs; (4) technical people should not lead committee activities; critical decisions should be made by PIs; and (5) users and administrators alike should be represented on committees. Publications (Hayden) The Publications Committee (LTER/PUB) has been active since the April meeting, communicating primarily via electronic mail throughout the summer to outline Committee structure and procedures. A key issue discussed was how to approach quality control and where to inject it. One model would be for the Committee to review a project at the outline level (helping to determine appropriateness of topic and content), leaving the peer-review responsibility to the editor. In another model, the Committee would be involved in soliciting reviewers. LTER/PUB members are evenly split on this question; Hayden sought the larger groups' views to help finalize these issues. A possible policy might involve the LTER/PUB providing an assistance role in the early stages and quality control in assistance to the publisher during the review process. Hayden noted that there are publishers interested in doing a series on work at the sites, and that a sequence of books in a series probably involves some sort of commonality. The LTER/PUB could help in setting standards. Some of the concerns that arose from discussion included: (1) the intended product should meet the approval of LTER community up front; (2) an implied censorial power is not comfortable for everyone; (3) a poor quality product might be produced which would reflect badly on the community; (4) agency partners such as USFS have their own editorial process/clearance procedures which sometimes need to be accommodated in joint projects. It was proposed that the LTER/PUB provide quality control on those publications that speak for the entire network and carry the LTER Network imprimatur, working with publishers to identify appropriate reviewers and ensuring that reviewers are selected. Proposals for network-scale projects should be submitted to the LTER/PUB in the form of a comprehensive outline. All sites voted in favor, some with the proviso that the criteria used is applied equally to all proposals. It was also decided that authors and editors of informal Network Office (NET) publications (such as the recent El Nino report) should provide information to NET regarding other related products in advance, to avoid unintended "scoops." Stephanie noted that a recommended citation will be added to all NET science publications in future to ensure proper attribution. Hayden requested that e-mail comments on these and other publications issues noted below be sent to LTER/PUB at pub@LTERnet.edu. All will be logged. He also noted that the Committee would like to have a PI-level Data Manager repesentative to inform the discussion on electronic publications. (Anyone interested is urged to contact Hayden.) Other issues: Should the Publications Committee have an advisory role with regard to Network Office products and electronic publications? To what degree should the Committee help in the area of electronic publications? Technology (Foster) Chair (pro tempore) David Foster noted he would strongly welcome and encourage involvement of anyone interested in Network technology issues to participate on the Technology Committee (LTER/TECH). The group has not been active lately and is presently in a state of reorganization, but there are new now opportunities for funding and cross-site work. The greatest immediate need is to identify a core group of individuals, users and developers alike (technical people and people with science needs that can be addressed by technology), to become involved. New participants were asked to come forward, especially as some currently involved are not interested in continuing. An e-mail request will be sent to all PIs. Foster asked the group for ideas of possible efforts the LTER/TECH might undertake. Among those put forward: (1) conduct an overall assessment of technology across the Network, (2) conduct an assessment of remote imagery needs and issues, (3) explore collaboration with a major NSF science/technology center at University of Washington (led by Lee Hood), and (4) Bruce Hayden noted that the NET review panel has a recommendation with regard to technology activities (the results of the review are not yet available). It was agreed that the most important step to take would be to provide a current assessment of the state of technology development in the Network, analogous to the one completed on RS/GIS a few years ago. Since then, there have been major advancements both at the sites and in technology development in general. NSF opportunities may provide supplemental awards to enhance technology use across the network and at individual sites. The NET proposal will contain a request for a technology workshop and a site assessment. It was noted that some sites have found technical solutions that could be shared with other sites with similar needs, and that it is important to extend new capabilities to all the sites. Teleconferencing was suggested as a good supplemental approach to communicating about technologies. Gosz noted that NSF funding is available for obtaining this capability. JF reminded participants that as the largest organized group of ecological scientists, LTER is expected to be on the cutting edge technologically. Synthesis (Wharton) Chair (pro tempore) Robert Wharton reported he had received some suggestions for workshops from the sites in response to his query for comments on standards and ideas for synthesis activities prior to the meeting. He requested help in determining a direction and a set of intellectual objectives for the committee and suggested a small workshop to define standards. In the discussion that followed, concerns were expressed about (1) conducting synthesis by committee, (2) the problem of trying to proceed with activities before standards are developed, (3) avoiding the problem of individual method advocates holding sway, (4) avoiding interruption of any standardization work already under way, (5) ensuring that methods are tied to science questions, and (6) having standards in place by the next round of proposals. It was pointed out that the document drafted by Hobbie and others on future directions in LTER research (provided at the meeting for comment) defines several synthesis objectives. Proposals included: (1) structuring workshops to address developing standards for the first four core areas, (2) structuring the Committee to act as a standards clearinghouse, (3) separating standards development and intellectual synthesis to ensure that the latter doesn't slip into the background, and (4) including sites outside the present network. Wharton invited those interested to meet prior to the next day's meeting to discuss the subject further and report back to the larger group. Jim Gosz noted that it was evidence of LTER's maturity that they are talking about synthesis. (JF remarked that it was almost a revolution at the level of the original MSI document!) (Discussion the next morning addressed the need to first define "synthesis" before determining how best to facilitate network-level synthesis. As a start, a series of workshops to develop standardization methods was proposed: (1) soil measurements (physical/chemical biology, Phil Robertson to organize; intended product, a volume of methods); (2) NPP (Indy Burke, similar product); (3) water measurements (not defined further, Charles Driscoll a possible organizer); (4) consumer dynamics (Bob Waide, tentatively); and (5) decomposition (folded back into soils, consult with LIDET re meeting at Kellogg next October). JF noted that, in principal, support for four workshops total was probably feasible over the next two-year period. Wharton will send the workshop proposals to the sites for further comment. Gosz urged the group to think beyond the ecosystem process level to other areas, such as scaling and biodiversity. He challenged them to develop up front taskforces for a subset of biome-level standards (soils, waters, etc., for forests). There was support for involving the Land-Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) sites among others and for taking an efficient hierarchical approach. This would involve people from similar systems getting together to develop standards first, then from different systems--thus avoiding ecosystem-level disagreements at the upper level and enabling comparison among broad ecosystem types. Climate (Greenland) David Greenland highlighted Climate Committee activities since the All Scientists Meeting and noted the availability of "El Nino and Long-Term Ecological Research Sites," a new report published by the LTER Network Office that documents the proceedings of the El Nino Workshop at the 1993 All Scientists Meeting. The Committee is continuing to pursue the idea of having climate designated as a core area for LTER studies. Most sites have considerable climatic data, but the Committee is discussing what should go on-line as a representative record, not necessarily including all temperatures or satellite data. They agreed a year ago to the generic intention to have climatic data from all sites on-line. Climate data is the most requested and among the most understandable and the least problematic. In discussion, some expressed the view that the job of a committee should be to document its activity on-line. This would provide information for synthesis, and would yield different information than if each site took its own approach. There was some agreement that climate is a logical place to begin standardization and quality control. Greenland noted that it is pointless to establish standards unless they're followed and monitored. NADP, for example, has a very good set of standards and a subcommittee that visits each site to enforce implementation and monitoring. JF commended Greenland for chairing the Climate Committee so effectively over the years, noting that the committee has been operational in a meaningful way since its inception. Gosz noted that this activity is an extremely important demonstration of what LTER is doing to get this information on-line; it comes close to satisfying NSF's policy without them having to wield a club. Graduate Students (Greenberg) Elected LTER Student Committee Chair Josh Greenberg acknowledged Caroline Bledsoe's guidance and support in getting a committee established following last year's All Scientists Meeting. The students have set up an on-line bulletin board (students@lternet.edu) with assistance from the Network Office and met a second time at the August ESA meeting in Knoxville, TN. Activities considered for the future include developing student information packets, strengthening interaction with PIs, and possibly creating a Mosaic page linked to the LTER home page. PIs were asked for their ideas and assistance on how to support student work at the sites. To support students to conduct intersite research, Josh proposed that an intersite scholarship program be instituted for a trial period (probably a year). Students could apply for funds through a review group including one student to do comparative work at other sites ($2,000 per student, 10 per year). Results could be written and presented in the newsletter and/or on-line. PIs were generally supportive of the proposal; however, some felt the students were thinking too small, that they'd need travel and supplies for a year, over and above what they're doing at their sites. It was noted that some of the best research at the sites is being done by LTER graduate students. Others felt the program should start small, but still as a network activity. Several PIs remarked that they would be happy to consider requests from students. NSF representatives cautioned that it would be important not to appear to create a select group, and that much of such work could already be feasible under the dissertation improvement program. Such seeding could be useful, so long as it is not tied to developing a proposal. Jerry Franklin noted that LTER has done little to promote students, reminding PIs that NSF had challenged them in the past and they'd "dropped the ball." It was proposed and unanimously approved that $20,000 would be requested in the NET proposal to stimulate student participation in intersite activities. (CPR voted yes with the caveat that the resulting data be published.) Data Management (James Brunt) Data Managers Committee Chair James Brunt reported that the Data Managers (DMs) have been organized since 1980 and that, as a group, they are moving more and more towards intersite cooperation. DMs now have a task force of six individuals (PI-level or proposal developers) that elects one person to report to the LTER/CC. This year's annual meeting included special sessions on metadata and involved several outside agency people. Due to its success, DMs propose to bring in more representatives from outside agencies at future meetings. A draft of the 1994 meeting report will be circulated electronically for comment. The 1988 MSI document will be revised as the Recommended Technological Capabilities document, or RTC. This activity will be led by John Briggs at Konza Prairie. Drafts will be circulated to PIs for comment. The RTC is perceived as an important step toward achieving the goal of putting datasets on-line. While it is easy to put data on line with current technology, Brunt noted, there is much more involved in making it useful for research. Site datasets will be on-line this year, but in just a flat form. The next step will be to move to queriable datasets with standards in place. To ensure that science drives the RTC process, the Executive Committee decided that a team of three to four PIs should meet with the Committee. Just five to six DMs have PI status now. This will be even more critical in the near future as the Data Managers will also be "on point" in ILTER activities. Interested PIs were urged to come forward to help advance this activity. BioScience Article (Hobbie) John Hobbie circulated a working draft of the document he and several PIs have been working on, a collective statement of LTER science looking to the next decade, based on the LTER2000 document, which will be submitted to BioScience. He acknowledged the need to include more site case histories and language that explains the different levels of work at sites. The paper will probably include about two case histories per section, related figures, four to five references for each section, photos and site maps. He noted that case histories should be from the published research. Each section author will be listed as an editor with Hobbie. During discussion other suggested changes included: (1) add a comment to the introduction on LTER's goals, (2) note mechanisms correctly and clearly with reference to current ones to be consistent, (3) try to get across the idea that the parts of LTER are at different stages and take different approaches, and (4) sketch a vision of where LTER is going in the conclusion in terms of these different stages of maturation. There was some discussion about whether BioScience was the best venue; Hobbie will also try Science. The group agreed that the draft was a good start and there was general support to move ahead, with site input due to the section authors in two weeks. Hobbie noted that the revised draft will be sent to the Publication Committee for a quality-control review, since this is a network-scale publication. Jerry Franklin thanked him for initiating and advancing the activity. AFTERNOON All-Site Bibliography & DREAM SUITE Project (Bledsoe and Hastings) Caroline Bledsoe gave a brief history of her contribution to LTER over the past six years, from developing the first personnel directory with Robert Robbins (NSF) to working on activities ranging from the Network of Networks, Trace Gas Network, Belowground Root Biology Group, and the Graduate Student Committee to her present subcontract at NET for the bibliographic project. She showed an on-line bibliography usage table, described search capabilities and limitations, and noted that she and Harvey Chinn are preparing two publications for submission to BioScience. Bledsoe and Jordan Hastings (MCM) will lead a synthesis project funded through a combination of cross-site supplements and Network Office support to develop and use software tools for synthesis of root biomass data from a number of LTER and non-LTER sites. They will start with XROOTS, Exploration of Root Observations and Organized Technical Software. Workshops over the 2 1/2 years of the project include: Agroecosystems (Alvin Smucker/KBS), Grasslands (Bill Lauenroth/CPR), Forest Ecosystems (Ron Hendrick, CWT). Root biomass, site data, climatic data, and soils data are needed from the sites for these workshops. Jordan Hastings provided an overview of the Tool Suite part of the project, a data and information system conceptually divided into two functions: reference and maintenance programs. The design will be frozen at some point, and real data loaded and linked to the bibliography. Applications will be coordinated with the database design and a review of the ecological literature, and developed interviews with practicing root scientists. The tools currently available which come closest to what biologists need will be assessed, and existing projects and programs or components thereof will be used to create the best package. Organizing committees of the workshops will also use these tools in cooperation with site data managers to install and distribute them networkwide. Hastings noted that the ideal Tool Suite for ecologists is likely to come from small projects like this and from collaboration with public and commercial groups. FY 1994 Special Competition for Cross-Site/International Research Awards James Gosz and Mike Allen noted that NSF constructed an interdisciplinary panel for the FY 1994 Special Competition for Cross- Site/International Research. The dynamics in the panel proved to be almost as important as the proposals: reviewers were solicited from sociology, archaeology, and other disciplines. For the international awards, international reviewers were also brought in. Review comments were written before panelists met as a group. Awardees were: John Aber (HFR). Forested and agricultural landscapes of New England and Ireland Caroline Bledsoe (UC Davis/NET). A comparison of belowground productivity at a number of sites in North America. Dave Coleman (CWT). Interaction between biodiversity and decomposition processes at three moist, warm, broad-leaved forest sites (Luquillo, La Selva, Coweeta) on similar soil types. Will coordinate with LIDET decomposition team. Anne Giblin (ARC). Comparison of the stoichiometric relationships among benthic fluxes of oxygen, carbon, sufur, nitrogen and phosphorous from sediments in a variety of lakes (Hubbard Brook, North Temperate Lakes, Arctic). Dave Greenland (AND/NWT). Comparative climatological analysis of the LTER sites. Mark Harmon (AND). Comparison of the carbon dynamics of two major coniferous forest regions (the Pacific Northwest and northwestern Russia) to determine the major factors controlling the spatial and temporal patterns of carbon stores and fluxes. Bill Lauenroth (CPR). With Indy Burke and Osvaldo Sala (temperate grassland site in Pategonia), looking at differing controls on decomposition with a strong international component. Ongoing collaboration building on approximately 10 years of work. John Magnuson (NTL). Intersite project to work with international sites (Northern Highland Lake District) on (1) landscape organization of lake districts in respect to landscape position, (2) area turnover species in lakes, and (3) ice phrenologies as climate change and variability indicators. Ed Whitelaw (an economist with an LTER-oriented grant). Intersite project to describe/explain linkages between ecosystems and local/regional economies at six LTER sites (AND, BNZ, CWT, HBR, SEV, NTL) and examine whatever feedbacks exist. Site Science Reports--"An exciting discovery or new approach" (not all recorded) VIRGINIA COAST (Hayden) - Have recently established relationships with one of counties they're located in to develop GIS for the county and share bird nesting site and annual bird count datasets. New outside collaborators include a DOE person from U of V, who is looking at the sedimentary platform to mainland, the rate and fate of transfer, and tracers of bacterial transports to marshes from well-field. VCR is engaged in a campaign to buy land ($2 million) for a long-term lab facility. SEVILLETA (Brunt) - SEV is moving into second funding cycle with work based on a watershed system using swap models and solar flux models (they will hire a new post-doc in this area). Based on existing datasets they are developing international efforts with Hungary and Mexico (Mapimi MAB site with Jornada), and are meeting with CPR and JRN on an intersite grassland project. Other collaborations include: Kitchell/stable isotope studies, agricultural and non-agricultural lands adjacent to wetlands; Kay Gross/EROL grant to do work at Sevilleta. PALMER (Ross) - PAL completed its August 1993 winter cruise off Palmer peninsula looking at ice vs. water habitat, (1) measuring the light field under ice, (2) taking water samples, and (3) collecting and censusing grazers. They found that the most activity is concentrated in the ice habitat in winter. Looked at the distribution of larval krill, they found that krill were not in the water column. The surprise was that not only was microbial activity higher than in water column, but that the ice was a hotter spot in terms of production than in summer. MCMURDO (Wharton) - MCM completed its first LTER season last fall and winter, and the data is just back from placing a network of stream gauges and soil transects in Taylor Valley. Polar Programs funded a GIS workshop in which PAL and MCM were major players. MCM has been asked to put on workshop in Santa Fe, NM concerning environmental management of the site. Antarctic sites don't compete for augmentation awards as do other LTERs; because of their unique funding arrangement, they have to go through Polar Programs to extend their research activities. With additional support from Polar Programs, MCM will be offering post-docs (sites encouraged to refer potential candidates among their students). Twenty-six scientists and students, and two New Zealanders, will be conducting the 1994-5 field season between now and February. NIWOT (Diggle) - Niwot researchers have nearly completed monitoring biotic activity under snow, and a new now fence was put in place last winter. Tim Seastedt recently returned from Austria, where he was exploring a formal collaboration with the University of Innsbruck. New faculty positions at Boulder are expected to enhance the LTER program. LUQUILLO (Zimmerman) - Puerto Rico has experienced a drought since May, the driest period recorded, although in Luquillo Forest there is still some rainfall. At the annual meeting in January LUQ researchers will begin looking at the effects. Jead Lodge has an article in a recent issue of Tree on nutrient pulses, hurricanes, and steady state. A grad student had an article in Kansas Journal that was picked up as a "hot paper" in Science News. Recently funded by NASA to look at land management and relationship to global climate and the effect of land use on forest recovery. The project also involves the Institute of Tropical Forestry and David Foster at Harvard Forest. KONZA (Knapp) - KNZ PIs are writing a synthesis volume, with Bruce Hayden to co-author the climate chapter. Konza looks at questions in tallgrass prairie belowground, whether it is a source or sink for carbon? They aare establishing a crop micrometeorlogist collaboration with DOE, USDA and others to put up four towers in burned and unburned and grazed fields to collect annual estimates. The instrumentation, which measures energy, water and carbon flux, is mostly belowground and fairly unobtrusive, making it both fire and weatherproof. JORNADA (Schlesinger) - Jornada will be featured in an upcoming article in Discover magazine that describes the entire set of measurements and an informal cross-site comparison of grassland and shrublands between Central Plains, JRN, and sites in the Great Basin comparison. HUBBARD BROOK (Fahey) - The Hubbard Brook Foundation was recently incorporated. Element cycling--particularly calcium--drives much of the work at HBR. Their annual session on birds captures the attention of the local community. Recent work shows that the neotropical bird population is declining; the big spikes in population may be linked to masking of tree seeds. HARVARD FOREST (Foster) - As a result of the augmentation proposal process, HFR has new collaborators--a paleolimnologist and a policy person from the Kennedy School of Government to look into forest management policy in the area. Several collaborative projects are ongoing with Luquillo. The site has a recent article in UPRO on wind disturbance and hurricane disturbance. They've found that synthesis papers going back to original proposal are still relevant, but they've gone back to reinterpret the landscape in light of historical events. It now appears that disturbance at the site is linked to an early significant salvage lodging operation--human rather than natural disturbance. CENTRAL PLAINS (Burke) - CPR has begun a new grazing experiment, a large study on how grazing influences soil organic matter, comparing grazed and ungrazed areas. Their interpretation: grazing creates less variation than plant presence vs. absence. They've found that the review process is a way to help the site grow. Based on the result of their site review, they have been addressing a deficit in data management. Called in Brunt (SEV), Michener (NIN), and a specialist from UC Santa Barbara for a thorough review, and they recommended adding personnel. BONANZA (Viereck) - BNZ is bringing the Caribou-Poker Creek Watershed formally into the system. Such experimental watersheds have always been a part of the University program, but not the LTER program. The site will be getting a new bridge, improving access to a number of research areas on both sides of the river. H.J. ANDREWS (Swanson) - HJA has been working with NASA and the Forest Service looking at landuse and ownerships in the Cascades and Western Washington from the early 70s to the present time, and changes to attributes, such as carbon stores. They're also conducting peak flow analysis with 40 to 50 years of data from small experimental watersheds, looking at effects of landuse, cutting and roads and changes in peak flows. The "stream team" has obtained funding from other sources to install restoration experiments. Those installed under LTER will be compared with above- and below-treated reaches over four to five years, looking at trout growth, carbon flux and invertebrate densities. As expected, the treated reach is increasing rates of production to the aquatic community. ARCTIC TUNDRA (Hobbie) - Three new laboratories have been established with NSF support. Neal Laine visited in August. Bruce Peterson N15 addition to streams model appears to work for streams at other sites using stable isotopes. A workshop involving CWT and AND is planned). An arctic land-atmosphere group, ITEX (international tundra experiment), is using Toolik Lake in an effort involving 20 arctic sites using ARC methods and manipulations for measuring leaf growth, etc. (Judy Meyer suggested a possible collaboration with CWT.). Network Office (Vande Castle & Nottrott) John Vande Castle reported that recent technological improvements at the Network Office have enabled reprocessing of data from the LTER-NASA collaborative experiment. Thanks to the assistance of Diane Wickland's group at NASA, Mission Earth data can now be accessed, as well as the Oak Ridge biogeochemical archive including FIFE, OTTER and other datasets. The data scanner has come on-line, and the sites are being solicited for their input as to where sun photometers should be deployed. The LTER-NASA proposal for a land-cover classification/assessment is progressing; the 13 participating sites are sending evaluations to Warren Cohen (AND) for a November 1 deadline. This is presently the largest dataset in Network. Rudolf Nottrott provided a demonstration of some of the new LTERnet capabilities utilizing Mosaic public domain software. Gil Calabria, Coweeta data manager, demonstrated the Mosaic "home page" put on-line for Coweeta since the September 1994 Data Managers meeting. Most of the sites are engaged in similar activity. (Other Network Office activities not reported at the meeting: Adrienne Whitener worked with Beth O' Grady at Coweeta to organize and coordinate the LTER/CC meeting and travel and has been assisting in preparation of the budget for the upcoming Cooperative Agreement. Lynne Hendrix coordinated much of the preparations for the International LTER meeting in the United Kingdom in August and the September Data Managers meeting in Seattle. Daniel Pommert has departed the Network Office for a year in Egypt and has been replaced by Raymond Bero, recently of CERL. Stephanie Martin has been developing or is planning to develop: (1) a Mosaic version of the general LTER program information contained in the brochure (now in text form on the LTERnet gopher), (2) "LTER Fact Sheets" to feature significant LTER intersite experiments and synthesis activities, and (3) a "pocket-sized" update of the 1991 site directory. Other publicity/public information tools are being considered for development over the next budget period, to include site press packets and presentation materials, portable loaner displays on synthesis experiments, an LTER poster, a simplified brochure, and others. (Sites should contact Stephanie with any suggestions.) Canada (Bruce LaZerte) Bruce LaZerte, Aquatic Science Section, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Ontario, provided a brief overview of long-term ecological research development in Canada with a few comments on the work of his section (See brochure attached for more information--in mailed copy.) Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (Brian Brookshire) Brian Brookshire gave a presentation on the Missouri Ozark Ecosystem Project (featured in Issue #15 of the LTER Network News) and invited LTER site scientists to consider the Project for individual or multiple site investigations. (See more information attached--in mailed copy.) International Activities (Franklin) The International LTER (ILTER) steering committee met at Rothamsted Station in the United Kingdom August 27-28 with 18 members representing seven countries. The group focused primarily upon mission definition and development of an action program for improved communications among sites and scientists. (Further detail in the current issue of the Network News.) Meetings of the ILTER Steering Committee are planned for Hungary (1995), Latin America (1996), China (1997), Canada (1998), Africa (1999), and the United States (2000). The process of identifying primary ILTER participants has begun with La Selva and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). The Connectivity Committee will look at current capabilities and what it would take to bring these sites up to a comparable level or to the capacity of a node in a global network. Jerry Franklin noted that full partners need comparable communication and data sharing facilities, as well as a shared mission. Collaboration/LTER Affiliation JF asked the group to reflect on where we are as a network. He noted that reaching out from the LTER community there are many ways to incorporate other types of sites. As the network-to-network concept has evolved, we've been contacted by DOE ParkNet, NBS, individual sites like Barro Colorado and La Selva, and others who would like to have a closer relationship with the LTER Network. There has always been the question of degrees of comparability in terms of technical capability, various levels of an extended network. It is no longer in LTER's best interests, JF noted, to "stiff-arm" these approaches. We need to develop mechanisms and criteria for an expanded approach to incorporate other sites. We have to actively engage this subject because the pressure is growing, and we'll be in a much better position if we look ahead. We can't claim we're too busy. For the near-term, NSF has chosen the alternative of augmenting existing sites, but we can't rely solely on NSF support if we want a better-distributed network. By what criteria would you recognize a partner? What do we do about single sites, not affiliated with networks? Among the comments: (1) We shouldn't be so strict in selecting affiliates (2) We should include non-LTER sites as question-driven affiliates (3) If formalizing a partnership, do we add expectations and/or responsibilities? (4) What is the time drain for the sites? (5) Will an increase in collaboration dilute site work? (6) What is the scientific payoff? (7) What would the impact be on the Network Office? (8) The partner's sponsoring agency should have to buy in and support the site(s) at the LTER level (9) The Memoranda of Agreement might be an appropriate mechanism for collaborations (10) We need list of criteria, a classification for partnership before we can proceed. (11) The intensity of the relationship should vary with the level of affiliation (12) The network-of-networks idea seems to be developing as an exchange between equals, a way out of increasing responsibilities (13) The LTER Network might evolve into acting as a clearinghouse, rather than the top of the pyramid, for the long-term. Bruce Hayden noted that the Hungarians seek a blessing from the LTER/CC and have indicated that they will do all that LTER does. They want a stamp of LTER approval and some benefit of affiliation, and they intend to redesign their terrestrial ecology program based on the LTER model. Such programs want to do research with us, learn techniques and technologies, but they are also looking for sources of money and ways to leverage dollars within their own countries. One initial approach, already being explored through the ILTER network, is for individual sites to identify and develop question-driven satellite sites. It was decided that a subgroup of the Executive Committee would be developed to explore alternative ideas on how to proceed on this issue. Meeting Schedule Next LTER/CC Meeting: April 19-25, 1995. This will be a small meeting at the Virginia Coast Reserve site. Travel will be via the Norfolk airport. Meeting and travel details will be sent via electronic mail from the Network Office as usual. Fall 1995 LTER/CC Meeting: JF suggested that the October meeting be held at Skamania Lodge on the Columbia River near Portland, Oregon instead of in Seattle at the Network Office as previously announced. Other suggestions included (1) Tucson, Arizona in conjunction with a biosphere program meeting (Jordan Hastings/MCM) and (2) Lincoln, Nebraska at the Soil Conservation Service (James Gosz/NSF). The date and location were not finalized. Next All Scientists Meeting. JF suggested the group revisit the issue of where to site and what time of year to hold the next All Scientists Meeting. He noted that alternative times of year would allow use of university campuses, which tend to be lower-cost than commercial facilities. Summer is not good because of conflicting society meetings and field seasons. January is not suitable because the two Antarctic sites are fully involved in their field season at that time and would not be able to participate. During discussion it was suggested that the meeting be scheduled to follow the ESA meeting, thus saving on travel cost and presentation/ poster development time, or that it be located at the Keystone Center, Snowbird, or Jackson Hole. Jerry polled the sites for time-of-year preferences and most preferred mid-September or January. It was decided to meet in mid-September 1995 as in 1993. Executive Committee Position Nominees Requested Nominees are requested for a replacement for Tim Seastedt on the Executive Committee. Send names to Jerry Franklin via electronic mail by December 15. From mallen@nsf.gov Wed Nov 30 09:29:21 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11498; Wed, 30 Nov 94 09:29:20 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25413; 30 Nov 94 9:29 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09147; Wed, 30 Nov 94 06:29:07 PST Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA25899 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 30 Nov 1994 09:28:52 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by xrelay.nsf.gov id AA786216386; Wed, 30 Nov 94 09:23:49 EST Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 09:23:49 EST From: mallen@nsf.gov Message-Id: <9410307862.AA786216386@xrelay.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: REU supplements Status: OR Dear PI's: You will soon receive a general DEB letter regarding REU supplements. Please disregard the procedural information described therein. Tom and I will be sending out guidelines for LTER REU (and other) supplements for FY 95 shortly. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Mike Allen Program Director, LTPEB, DEB, NSF From jgosz@nsf.gov Wed Nov 30 12:57:47 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12268; Wed, 30 Nov 94 12:57:46 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21776; 30 Nov 94 12:57 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10969; Wed, 30 Nov 94 09:54:39 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA17453 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Wed, 30 Nov 1994 12:54:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199411301754.AA17453@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: jbrunt@lternet.edu Subject: Soil Classification survey Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 12:54:28 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Stephanie reminded me that Phil Sollins generated a soil survey report for a number of sites. Twelve responded. I will use that for the request for information on what surveys have been made for those twelve sites. If other sites want to be involved, they need to supply that information. All sites need to supply the other information listed in my first memo if they want to participate. jim gosz From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Nov 30 14:46:48 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12758; Wed, 30 Nov 94 14:46:42 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20519; 30 Nov 94 14:46 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12113; Wed, 30 Nov 94 11:42:56 PST Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 11:42:55 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Corrected LTER/CC Minutes To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Jim Gosz provided some important corrections relative to his discussions at the meeting which are incorporated below. The corrected version will also be sent out via regular mail to the extended PI list. Please disregard the version of the minutes I sent out yesterday and excuse the inconvenience. Thank you, Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office =========================================================================== M I N U T E S LTER Coordinating Committee Meeting October 19-21, 1994 Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory AFTERNOON, CLOSED SESSION, OCTOBER 19, 1994 In attendance: LTER site representatives (see attached list-regular mailing only), Network Office staff (Martin, Nottrott, Vande Castle), NSF representatives (James Gosz & Mike Allen, DEB) NSF Report (James Gosz, DEB) Reorganization There are significant, positive changes taking place at the National Science Foundation. The number of visiting scientist program officers will decrease to 60 or 70 percent of the total. At this time, there are only 3 permanent program officers and 10 visiting scientists. Tom Callahan is one of the permanent program officers and he will be moved to the Ecosystem Studies program. He will continue to interact with the LTER program to provide a memory within the system for that program. One permanent program officer will be present for each program (Systematics, Population Biology, Ecology, Ecosystem Studies. In the Long-Term Projects cluster, the permanent position will deal with programs on research collections and survey and inventories. The LTER-LMER projects person would be a rotator, a development that could have distinct advantages. Tom Callahan has been fighting for LTER virtually by himself (and LTER has been the only program whose budget has consistently been increased); another person is needed to focus on interagency aspects and develop linkages with other disciplines. Thomas Callahan and Mike Allen (for another year) will work together to maximize memory and new ideas in rotator and permanent positions assigned to Long-Term Studies. Gosz solicited suggestions for good candidates to be scheduled in advance, allowing them time to "get their lives together." DEB is trying to develop a longer-range plan and a mechanism for identifying the best people. Candidates should be visionaries who have broad backgrounds and training. These will not just be "proposal jacket processing jobs"; rotators will be involved in developing science initiatives with input from the community. While two-year rotators are preferred, NSF will accept those available for just one. A search is currently being conducted to fill James Estes' position. Scott Collins' position (Ecological Studies) will become permanent. Gosz urged the LTER community to take advantage of the opportunity these changes provide by taking a more active role in proposing initiatives and guidelines and contributing program officers. The LTER Network is now better organized, more mature, and better able to respond to such changes as opportunities. He noted that the scientific expertise needs to come from within the community, not the agency. He also cautioned that the LTER model is being closely scrutinized across agencies; anything that looks like an entitlement will be viewed with suspicion. Budget (Gosz) Biological Sciences doesn't yet have a concrete budget, due to the changes at NSF and the "new" way the agency is doing business. Gosz anticipated that within a month he might know about any augmentation or supplemental opportunities. He distributed an invitation from THE Survey and Inventory PROGRAM to submit proposals. While not a formal program solicitation, this invitation indicates that the program will entertain proposals from LTER sites. This is a standard program that entertains proposals in mid-November and mid-May. Mike Allen is currently the relevant program officer since Jim Estes returned to his university. He noted that several such opportunities exist for LTER with the heightened interest in biodiversity and sustainability across programs--although these concepts may be defined differently. He urged the sites, as they look ahead to working on site proposals, to anticipate cross-site or augmentation competitions of some type along biodiversity themes. Data Sharing Relative to Current Policy (Gosz) It is now grant proposal policy for some programs at NSF to instruct panelists to look for data sharing components; proposals that don't include data sharing will not fare well. The general NSF policy reads that NSF-funded projects should "share data, samples, physical collections, software, and inventions." While NSF has in the past expected data to be shared, this was never enforced. There will be increased interest at NSF for ways to encourage the scientific community to share data. LTER should take a leadership role in providing the broader scientific community access to datasets on-line. The global change research program is using new language about what is expected from grantees who get funded--schedules and plans for data turnover to a publicly accessible archive must be submitted. Tony Janetos reports that for NASA's field campaigns potential PIs were told that they must contribute to a public archive. The community accepted this proviso, and no one's data got scooped. Gosz noted that the LTER data managers had taken an important step forward on this issue at their September meeting. Although the associated issue of obtaining credit for publishing datasets was not resolved, he noted that on-line LTER datasets would provide a visual model that could indirectly shake loose more funding with a feedback to more models, and so on. James Brunt, Data Management Committee Chair, reported that there had been a lot of discussion about putting datasets on-line since the September meeting. A table indicating what all sites are doing has been completed, and a preliminary review shows there is no technical reason that sites can't comply. The datasets will be available and queriable on-line to the LTER community for some scientific purpose, and they will include descriptions of metadata standards, access system, and technical capabilities that allow participation. There is more involved in developing the kind of system that would be accessible to anyone in the scientific community. Legal issues will need to be addressed, as will the potential for misuse of data. An informal poll of the sites as to whether they were "on track" in putting one favorite dataset on-line revealed that most are. Information on which datasets were initially being put on-line was collected (see list attached-regular mailing only). Augmentation Competition "Post Mortem" (Allen) Two LTER site augmentations have been awarded, one to North Temperate Lakes (Tim Kratz-Upper Midwest Lakes and Their Landscapes: 1800-2100) and the other to Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory (Judy Meyer-Causes and consequences of land cover change in the Southern Appalachians). Responses to other proposals will be back soon. These first two augmentations will be extremely important in generating more and they will need the Network's support. NSF realizes the need to extend the opportunity to rest of the Network, but it is too early to say how many, or if any, more sites will be similarly "ramped up." The panel felt that in terms of general direction all proposals were good, but the program is money-limited. Many strong proposals sought to expand present work to social and economic aspects. The two awarded thought more in terms of biodiversity. Some PIs expressed concern that these first augmented sites will gear up with a bang but, without a longer-range commitment, could stall out in six months. Allen acknowledged that NSF will probably have to make decisions on subsequent awards before any information is back from first two. It was suggested that this is probably a test to see if the Network can work effectively with the two sites funded, and if the two can help promote the idea of augmentation, further reinforcing NSF leadership's view of LTER as a flagship program. NTL and CWT were asked to place their proposals on-line for Network access. (Abstracts will be provided in the Spring 1995 issue of Network News.) JF pointed out that using sites as expert systems, stepping outside to interpret on a larger scale, will very much be the wave of the future in funding for science. He reminded the group what an extraordinary opportunity LTER has and will have in being participatory in the program's future. He noted that while these opportunities can sometimes be painful, the payoff can be monumental. Network Office Site Review (Allen) Mike Allen reported that NSF conducted the first on-site review of the Network Office (NET) September 20-21. While the review is not yet completed, in general the review was quite positive. Concerns included whether there would be appropriate support and space at the University of Washington. JF will be using the results of the review to develop the Network Office cooperative agreement, which will replace the grant as funding mechanism. The review addressed two areas: (1) Was NET accomplishing its goals, and (2) What should NET accomplish? As the Network matures, there is a need to reassess directions. AFTERNOON SESSION Network Office Program & Budget Jerry Franklin reported that the full-fledged September LTER Network Office (NET) site review, originally being approached as a pre-proposal discussion, came as a surprise for which there was little time to prepare. The morning of the review, staff learned that the next proposal was to be prepared prior to negotiation for not two, but six years. The new funding mechanism for NET will be a cooperative agreement, along the lines of the University of Michigan model. He noted that cooperative agreements must abide by the same guidelines as site proposals and circulated copies of the draft proposal for site comment. He also reminded representatives that support for NET is not from the competitive pot available to the LTER sites, but from a combination of Environmental Biology, International Programs and Polar Programs sources. If not to NET, these funds would go to other programs, not LTER. NET will prepare an annual report for NSF and draft a proposal for the next year's activities, to be submitted to NSF after PI input prior to the fall LTER/CC meeting. There will be an annual site review and a national advisory committee, and NSF and NET will negotiate an agreement subject to an independent panel and Network review. Following review, which will probably occur at two- to three-year intervals, the Office could be moved. The outside review strongly reinforced that NET should not be located at one of sites or at the Synthesis Center. At least for a significant time, it is not desirable for either group to lose identity to the other. By the end of 1995, the new Chair and Executive Director should be fully on board and will be revisiting this issue as/if it arises. For this proposal, the University of Washington has made commitments of additional space, as well as contributions to the salaries of John Vande Castle, the new Executive Director, and support for two research assistants, and the GIS Laboratory manager. PIs were asked to provide advise to JF within a week in two areas: (1) continuance of work done in past and the expansion as per the LTER/CC's decisions of last spring--recruiting an Executive Director, expanding the committee structure, and providing additional support for the Chair--and (2) what workshops/synthetic activities NET should be involved in over the next two years in some way? In general, NET workshops should not clearly stand alone as separate proposals, or they may not stand up to the peer-review process. Sites were also asked to consider: * Should NET be the permanent home for "orphan datasets" (such as NIN's). * A comparison of RS/GIS datasets is proposed with U.K.'s Ecological Change Network. Should we look at a broader array of technical innovation, such as measurement technologies, beyond just storage and compiling? * Funds are requested for outreach activities associated with beginning a global network (ILTER), defining relationships to other sites and networks, and developing internationally, ($250,000-$350,000 total--25%-30% of the budget). What level of outreach and involvement is appropriate? In the discussion on possible workshops that followed, it was proposed that a mechanism to revisit core areas (how do they help/impede?) be identified, and that a series of question-driven workshops to establish standards for each core area be supported. JF noted that if the group came forward with alternatives to the core areas NSF might entertain substitutes; simply trashing them wouldn't fly. Any substitute would need to tie the sites together as the core areas have. The group was asked to think further on the issue, and consider the next All Scientists Meeting as the possible forum for five core-driven workshops to identify intellectual standards. National & International Outreach-Who Will Participate? JF noted that the collaborative activity initiated under ILTER is not intended to replace the valuable scientist-to-scientist interactions that have occurred in the past. The Network Office (NET) will likely become a clearinghouse of such activity involving the sites. We want many flowers to bloom, but we need to know where the flowers are. The developing international network has begun to look at the same problems that LTER has as a network--namely, who will participate? ILTER will probably work to develop national or regional network nodes, eventually de-emphasizing NET's central role. JF charged the group to develop a vision of how LTER should relate to both national and international agencies and groups. Through what critera do we judge "appropriate" partners? Is it enough to simply have a shared goal or mission? We are beginning to use capabilities as a filter. Does a given site have the capability to communicate and exchange data as we do as LTER site? Should LTER define different levels or grades of affiliation or participation? One level might be to encourage outside sites to regularly participate on the DM Committee. AFTERNOON CLOSED SESSION One representative per site met to vote on the nomination of James Gosz for the next chair of the LTER Network. A role call indicated that all were present except Niwot and Cedar Creek. [Seastedt sent in a vote for Niwot prior to the meeting.] Nomination of Next LTER/CC Chair--James Gosz Unanimously Elected Following the procedure adopted by the Coordinating Committee last (LTER/CC) spring, the Executive Committee solicited nominations and contacted candidates for the next LTER/CC Chair. Fifteen individuals were nominated, all LTER scientists. Both LMER and LTREB PIs were contacted, but no additional nominations were offered. Three nominees--Gosz, Hayden and Magnuson--received more than one nomination. Of the nominees, three indicated an interest. Magnuson and Hayden both indicated a willingness to serve, but because of pressing site responsibilities preferred not to be considered at this time. The Executive Committee considered James Gosz' qualifications and his interest and ability to devote a significant amount of time to the position over the next several years, and unanimously recommended him to the full Committee. The nomination was seconded by Judy Meyer. Following discussion the group agreed that Gosz' leadership style would suit the future needs of the Network well, and the vote was unanimously in favor. JF will act as executive director for the next year, maintaining ILTER chairmanship during the transition period, eventually passing the responsibility on to Gosz. LTER/CC MEETING, THURSDAY OCTOBER 20, 1994 NSF News & Funding Situation (Jim Gosz & Mike Allen) As a result of last year's push in Congress for NSF to do more strategic research in areas of national need, a long-range strategic plan was requested from the agency. The $3.2 billion budget is up $200 million over last year, although the amount targeted for research activities is below that requested in the Administration's budget. A $50 million increase from $100 million has been requested for research infrastructure (including research equipment). This is the year to submit for research instrumentation in general. The Foundation has identified eight strategic themes, several of interest to LTER. These themes are cross-divisional and multi-disciplinary and include Biodiversity, Water and Watersheds, Environmental Technology, and Research Management. (The last two are particularly likely to result in opportunities; special announcements are currently being written.) While DEB would like to offer funds for augmentation, cross-site work and internationalization, opportunities are more likely to be in terrestrial ecology, trace gas or complex experiments of multiple interacting factors and atmosphere-terrestrial feedbacks (including wetlands and streams). When the budget shakedown occurs, they hope to get word out about opportunities electronically with longer lead time than in the past. PIs were urged to be thinking now what shape these might take. Biodiversity approaches might be to improve fundamental understanding from genes to landscapes, poorly-known habitats and species, adaptation of organisms to environmental changes (human-economic aspects included), and water-watersheds approaches to improve our predictive understanding of fluxes, changes to water systems, knowledge to develop mitigating strategies, and sustainable economic development--all of which are directly relevant to LTER and are broad enough to include much of what LTER is interested in doing. Due to the division reorganization that has resulted in the Long-Term Projects person being a rotator, LTER has an important opportunity to identify someone with strengths in the areas of restoration and bioremediation. Standing Network Committees/Committee Structure (Committee Structure) At the last meeting, the LTER/CC decided that it wanted to support an expanded committee structure to encourage more LTER investigators to become actively involved in creating Network policies and programs. JF noted that the first task of each committee is to propose a charter, then to decide how chairs should be selected and membership formed, what rights and privileges members should have, the scope and nature of activities to be undertaken, and what should be the financial commitment. Currently, the Network Office budget includes support for an annual Data Managers (DM) meeting at a level of $40,000, including a regular meeting and workshop. There are also two proposals under development for workshops in the technology area, and the climate group, which has a supplemental grant that does not include general committee support, submitted a proposal at the meeting. Following a recommendation from the Executive Committee, the DM Committee has proposed that an information management group of three to four principal investigators attend the annual DMs meeting to ensure that Network data management activities are guided by those involved in developing and designing the site research programs. In general discussion on committee structure, the point was made that the Network doesn't need a separate committee for each problem, but a committee to focus on approaches. It was also noted that committees should be able to meet via electronic means between annual meetings or regular LTER/CC meetings. Before inviting current chairs to report on their committees' activities, JF opened discussion on how committee development had been progressing. Among the suggestions: (1) committees should form a steering committees or "guidance group" which includes members who do not attend LTER/CC meetings; (2) committee chairs should be LTER/CC members, so that activities are led by the sites; (3) committee steering groups should be comprised of lead PIs; (4) technical people should not lead committee activities; critical decisions should be made by PIs; and (5) users and administrators alike should be represented on committees. Publications (Hayden) The Publications Committee (LTER/PUB) has been active since the April meeting, communicating primarily via electronic mail throughout the summer to outline Committee structure and procedures. A key issue discussed was how to approach quality control and where to inject it. One model would be for the Committee to review a project at the outline level (helping to determine appropriateness of topic and content), leaving the peer-review responsibility to the editor. In another model, the Committee would be involved in soliciting reviewers. LTER/PUB members are evenly split on this question; Hayden sought the larger groups' views to help finalize these issues. A possible policy might involve the LTER/PUB providing an assistance role in the early stages and quality control in assistance to the publisher during the review process. Hayden noted that there are publishers interested in doing a series on work at the sites, and that a sequence of books in a series probably involves some sort of commonality. The LTER/PUB could help in setting standards. Some of the concerns that arose from discussion included: (1) the intended product should meet the approval of LTER community up front; (2) an implied censorial power is not comfortable for everyone; (3) a poor quality product might be produced which would reflect badly on the community; (4) agency partners such as USFS have their own editorial process/clearance procedures which sometimes need to be accommodated in joint projects. It was proposed that the LTER/PUB provide quality control on those publications that speak for the entire network and carry the LTER Network imprimatur, working with publishers to identify appropriate reviewers and ensuring that reviewers are selected. Proposals for network-scale projects should be submitted to the LTER/PUB in the form of a comprehensive outline. All sites voted in favor, some with the proviso that the criteria used is applied equally to all proposals. It was also decided that authors and editors of informal Network Office (NET) publications (such as the recent El Nino report) should provide information to NET regarding other related products in advance, to avoid unintended "scoops." Stephanie noted that a recommended citation will be added to all NET science publications in future to ensure proper attribution. Hayden requested that e-mail comments on these and other publications issues noted below be sent to LTER/PUB at pub@LTERnet.edu. All will be logged. He also noted that the Committee would like to have a PI-level Data Manager repesentative to inform the discussion on electronic publications. (Anyone interested is urged to contact Hayden.) Other issues: Should the Publications Committee have an advisory role with regard to Network Office products and electronic publications? To what degree should the Committee help in the area of electronic publications? Technology (Foster) Chair (pro tempore) David Foster noted he would strongly welcome and encourage involvement of anyone interested in Network technology issues to participate on the Technology Committee (LTER/TECH). The group has not been active lately and is presently in a state of reorganization, but there are new now opportunities for funding and cross-site work. The greatest immediate need is to identify a core group of individuals, users and developers alike (technical people and people with science needs that can be addressed by technology), to become involved. New participants were asked to come forward, especially as some currently involved are not interested in continuing. An e-mail request will be sent to all PIs. Foster asked the group for ideas of possible efforts the LTER/TECH might undertake. Among those put forward: (1) conduct an overall assessment of technology across the Network, (2) conduct an assessment of remote imagery needs and issues, (3) explore collaboration with a major NSF science/technology center at University of Washington (led by Lee Hood), and (4) Bruce Hayden noted that the NET review panel has a recommendation with regard to technology activities (the results of the review are not yet available). It was agreed that the most important step to take would be to provide a current assessment of the state of technology development in the Network, analogous to the one completed on RS/GIS a few years ago. Since then, there have been major advancements both at the sites and in technology development in general. NSF opportunities may provide supplemental awards to enhance technology use across the network and at individual sites. The NET proposal will contain a request for a technology workshop and a site assessment. It was noted that some sites have found technical solutions that could be shared with other sites with similar needs, and that it is important to extend new capabilities to all the sites. Teleconferencing was suggested as a good supplemental approach to communicating about technologies. Gosz noted that NSF funding is available for obtaining this capability. JF reminded participants that as the largest organized group of ecological scientists, LTER is expected to be on the cutting edge technologically. Synthesis (Wharton) Chair (pro tempore) Robert Wharton reported he had received some suggestions for workshops from the sites in response to his query for comments on standards and ideas for synthesis activities prior to the meeting. He requested help in determining a direction and a set of intellectual objectives for the committee and suggested a small workshop to define standards. In the discussion that followed, concerns were expressed about (1) conducting synthesis by committee, (2) the problem of trying to proceed with activities before standards are developed, (3) avoiding the problem of individual method advocates holding sway, (4) avoiding interruption of any standardization work already under way, (5) ensuring that methods are tied to science questions, and (6) having standards in place by the next round of proposals. It was pointed out that the document drafted by Hobbie and others on future directions in LTER research (provided at the meeting for comment) defines several synthesis objectives. Proposals included: (1) structuring workshops to address developing standards for the first four core areas, (2) structuring the Committee to act as a standards clearinghouse, (3) separating standards development and intellectual synthesis to ensure that the latter doesn't slip into the background, and (4) including sites outside the present network. Wharton invited those interested to meet prior to the next day's meeting to discuss the subject further and report back to the larger group. Jim Gosz noted that it was evidence of LTER's maturity that they are talking about synthesis. (JF remarked that it was almost a revolution at the level of the original MSI document!) (Discussion the next morning addressed the need to first define "synthesis" before determining how best to facilitate network-level synthesis. As a start, a series of workshops to develop standardization methods was proposed: (1) soil measurements (physical/chemical biology, Phil Robertson to organize; intended product, a volume of methods); (2) NPP (Indy Burke, similar product); (3) water measurements (not defined further, Charles Driscoll a possible organizer); (4) consumer dynamics (Bob Waide, tentatively); and (5) decomposition (folded back into soils, consult with LIDET re meeting at Kellogg next October). JF noted that, in principal, support for four workshops total was probably feasible over the next two-year period. Wharton will send the workshop proposals to the sites for further comment. Gosz urged the group to think beyond the ecosystem process level to other areas, such as scaling and biodiversity. He challenged them to develop up front taskforces for a subset of biome-level standards (soils, waters, etc., for forests). There was support for involving the Land-Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) sites among others and for taking an efficient hierarchical approach. This would involve people from similar systems getting together to develop standards first, then from different systems--thus avoiding ecosystem-level disagreements at the upper level and enabling comparison among broad ecosystem types. Climate (Greenland) David Greenland highlighted Climate Committee activities since the All Scientists Meeting and noted the availability of "El Nino and Long-Term Ecological Research Sites," a new report published by the LTER Network Office that documents the proceedings of the El Nino Workshop at the 1993 All Scientists Meeting. The Committee is continuing to pursue the idea of having climate designated as a core area for LTER studies. Most sites have considerable climatic data, but the Committee is discussing what should go on-line as a representative record, not necessarily including all temperatures or satellite data. They agreed a year ago to the generic intention to have climatic data from all sites on-line. Climate data is the most requested and among the most understandable and the least problematic. In discussion, some expressed the view that the job of a committee should be to document its activity on-line. This would provide information for synthesis, and would yield different information than if each site took its own approach. There was some agreement that climate is a logical place to begin standardization and quality control. Greenland noted that it is pointless to establish standards unless they're followed and monitored. NADP, for example, has a very good set of standards and a subcommittee that visits each site to enforce implementation and monitoring. JF commended Greenland for chairing the Climate Committee so effectively over the years, noting that the committee has been operational in a meaningful way since its inception. Gosz noted that this activity is an extremely important demonstration of what LTER is doing to get this information on-line; it comes close to satisfying NSF's policy without them having to wield a club. Graduate Students (Greenberg) Elected LTER Student Committee Chair Josh Greenberg acknowledged Caroline Bledsoe's guidance and support in getting a committee established following last year's All Scientists Meeting. The students have set up an on-line bulletin board (students@lternet.edu) with assistance from the Network Office and met a second time at the August ESA meeting in Knoxville, TN. Activities considered for the future include developing student information packets, strengthening interaction with PIs, and possibly creating a Mosaic page linked to the LTER home page. PIs were asked for their ideas and assistance on how to support student work at the sites. To support students to conduct intersite research, Josh proposed that an intersite scholarship program be instituted for a trial period (probably a year). Students could apply for funds through a review group including one student to do comparative work at other sites ($2,000 per student, 10 per year). Results could be written and presented in the newsletter and/or on-line. PIs were generally supportive of the proposal; however, some felt the students were thinking too small, that they'd need travel and supplies for a year, over and above what they're doing at their sites. It was noted that some of the best research at the sites is being done by LTER graduate students. Others felt the program should start small, but still as a network activity. Several PIs remarked that they would be happy to consider requests from students. NSF representatives cautioned that it would be important not to appear to create a select group, and that much of such work could already be feasible under the dissertation improvement program. Such seeding could be useful, so long as it is not tied to developing a proposal. JF noted that LTER has done little to promote students, reminding PIs that NSF had challenged them in the past and they'd "dropped the ball." It was proposed and unanimously approved that $20,000 would be requested in the NET proposal to stimulate student participation in intersite activities. (CPR voted yes with the caveat that the resulting data be published.) Data Management (James Brunt) Data Managers Committee Chair James Brunt reported that the Data Managers (DMs) have been organized since 1980 and that, as a group, they are moving more and more towards intersite cooperation. DMs now have a task force of six individuals (PI-level or proposal developers) that elects one person to report to the LTER/CC. This year's annual meeting included special sessions on metadata and involved several outside agency people. Due to its success, DMs propose to bring in more representatives from outside agencies at future meetings. A draft of the 1994 meeting report will be circulated electronically for comment. The 1988 MSI document will be revised as the Recommended Technological Capabilities document, or RTC. This activity will be led by John Briggs at Konza Prairie. Drafts will be circulated to PIs for comment. The RTC is perceived as an important step toward achieving the goal of putting datasets on-line. While it is easy to put data on line with current technology, Brunt noted, there is much more involved in making it useful for research. Site datasets will be on-line this year, but in just a flat form. The next step will be to move to queriable datasets with standards in place. To ensure that science drives the RTC process, the Executive Committee decided that a team of three to four PIs should meet with the Committee. Just five to six DMs have PI status now. This will be even more critical in the near future as the Data Managers will also be "on point" in ILTER activities. Interested PIs were urged to come forward to help advance this activity. BioScience Article (Hobbie) John Hobbie circulated a working draft of the document he and several PIs have been working on, a collective statement of LTER science looking to the next decade, based on the LTER2000 document, which will be submitted to BioScience. He acknowledged the need to include more site case histories and language that explains the different levels of work at sites. The paper will probably include about two case histories per section, related figures, four to five references for each section, photos and site maps. He noted that case histories should be from the published research. Each section author will be listed as an editor with Hobbie. During discussion other suggested changes included: (1) add a comment to the introduction on LTER's goals, (2) note mechanisms correctly and clearly with reference to current ones to be consistent, (3) try to get across the idea that the parts of LTER are at different stages and take different approaches, and (4) sketch a vision of where LTER is going in the conclusion in terms of these different stages of maturation. There was some discussion about whether BioScience was the best venue; Hobbie will also try Science. The group agreed that the draft was a good start and there was general support to move ahead, with site input due to the section authors in two weeks. Hobbie noted that the revised draft will be sent to the Publication Committee for a quality-control review, since this is a network-scale publication. Jerry Franklin thanked him for initiating and advancing the activity. AFTERNOON All-Site Bibliography & DREAM SUITE Project (Bledsoe and Hastings) Caroline Bledsoe gave a brief history of her contribution to LTER over the past six years, from developing the first personnel directory with Robert Robbins (NSF) to working on activities ranging from the Network of Networks, Trace Gas Network, Belowground Root Biology Group, and the Graduate Student Committee to her present subcontract at NET for the bibliographic project. She showed an on-line bibliography usage table, described search capabilities and limitations, and noted that she and Harvey Chinn are preparing two publications for submission to BioScience. Bledsoe and Jordan Hastings (MCM) will lead a synthesis project funded through a combination of cross-site supplements and Network Office support to develop and use software tools for synthesis of root biomass data from a number of LTER and non-LTER sites. They will start with XROOTS, Exploration of Root Observations and Organized Technical Software. Workshops over the 2 1/2 years of the project include: Agroecosystems (Alvin Smucker/KBS), Grasslands (Bill Lauenroth/CPR), Forest Ecosystems (Ron Hendrick, CWT). Root biomass, site data, climatic data, and soils data are needed from the sites for these workshops. Jordan Hastings provided an overview of the Tool Suite part of the project, a data and information system conceptually divided into two functions: reference and maintenance programs. The design will be frozen at some point, and real data loaded and linked to the bibliography. Applications will be coordinated with the database design and a review of the ecological literature, and developed interviews with practicing root scientists. The tools currently available which come closest to what biologists need will be assessed, and existing projects and programs or components thereof will be used to create the best package. Organizing committees of the workshops will also use these tools in cooperation with site data managers to install and distribute them networkwide. Hastings noted that the ideal Tool Suite for ecologists is likely to come from small projects like this and from collaboration with public and commercial groups. FY 1994 Special Competition for Cross-Site/International Research Awards James Gosz and Mike Allen noted that NSF constructed an interdisciplinary panel for the FY 1994 Special Competition for Cross- Site/International Research. The dynamics in the panel proved to be almost as important as the proposals: reviewers were solicited from sociology, archaeology, and other disciplines. For the international awards, international reviewers were also brought in. Review comments were written before panelists met as a group. Awardees were: John Aber (HFR). Forested and agricultural landscapes of New England and Ireland Caroline Bledsoe (UC Davis/NET). A comparison of belowground productivity at a number of sites in North America. Dave Coleman (CWT). Interaction between biodiversity and decomposition processes at three moist, warm, broad-leaved forest sites (Luquillo, La Selva, Coweeta) on similar soil types. Will coordinate with LIDET decomposition team. Anne Giblin (ARC). Comparison of the stoichiometric relationships among benthic fluxes of oxygen, carbon, sufur, nitrogen and phosphorous from sediments in a variety of lakes (Hubbard Brook, North Temperate Lakes, Arctic). Dave Greenland (AND/NWT). Comparative climatological analysis of the LTER sites. Mark Harmon (AND). Comparison of the carbon dynamics of two major coniferous forest regions (the Pacific Northwest and northwestern Russia) to determine the major factors controlling the spatial and temporal patterns of carbon stores and fluxes. Bill Lauenroth (CPR). With Indy Burke and Osvaldo Sala (temperate grassland site in Pategonia), looking at differing controls on decomposition with a strong international component. Ongoing collaboration building on approximately 10 years of work. John Magnuson (NTL). Intersite project to work with international sites (Northern Highland Lake District) on (1) landscape organization of lake districts in respect to landscape position, (2) area turnover species in lakes, and (3) ice phrenologies as climate change and variability indicators. Ed Whitelaw (an economist with an LTER-oriented grant). Intersite project to describe/explain linkages between ecosystems and local/regional economies at six LTER sites (AND, BNZ, CWT, HBR, SEV, NTL) and examine whatever feedbacks exist. Site Science Reports--"An exciting discovery or new approach" (not all recorded) VIRGINIA COAST (Hayden) - Have recently established relationships with one of counties they're located in to develop GIS for the county and share bird nesting site and annual bird count datasets. New outside collaborators include a DOE person from U of V, who is looking at the sedimentary platform to mainland, the rate and fate of transfer, and tracers of bacterial transports to marshes from well-field. VCR is engaged in a campaign to buy land ($2 million) for a long-term lab facility. SEVILLETA (Brunt) - SEV is moving into second funding cycle with work based on a watershed system using swap models and solar flux models (they will hire a new post-doc in this area). Based on existing datasets they are developing international efforts with Hungary and Mexico (Mapimi MAB site with Jornada), and are meeting with CPR and JRN on an intersite grassland project. Other collaborations include: Kitchell/stable isotope studies, agricultural and non-agricultural lands adjacent to wetlands; Kay Gross/EROL grant to do work at Sevilleta. PALMER (Ross) - PAL completed its August 1993 winter cruise off Palmer peninsula looking at ice vs. water habitat, (1) measuring the light field under ice, (2) taking water samples, and (3) collecting and censusing grazers. They found that the most activity is concentrated in the ice habitat in winter. Looked at the distribution of larval krill, they found that krill were not in the water column. The surprise was that not only was microbial activity higher than in water column, but that the ice was a hotter spot in terms of production than in summer. MCMURDO (Wharton) - MCM completed its first LTER season last fall and winter, and the data is just back from placing a network of stream gauges and soil transects in Taylor Valley. Polar Programs funded a GIS workshop in which PAL and MCM were major players. MCM has been asked to put on workshop in Santa Fe, NM concerning environmental management of the site. Antarctic sites don't compete for augmentation awards as do other LTERs; because of their unique funding arrangement, they have to go through Polar Programs to extend their research activities. With additional support from Polar Programs, MCM will be offering post-docs (sites encouraged to refer potential candidates among their students). Twenty-six scientists and students, and two New Zealanders, will be conducting the 1994-5 field season between now and February. NIWOT (Diggle) - Niwot researchers have nearly completed monitoring biotic activity under snow, and a new now fence was put in place last winter. Tim Seastedt recently returned from Austria, where he was exploring a formal collaboration with the University of Innsbruck. New faculty positions at Boulder are expected to enhance the LTER program. LUQUILLO (Zimmerman) - Puerto Rico has experienced a drought since May, the driest period recorded, although in Luquillo Forest there is still some rainfall. At the annual meeting in January LUQ researchers will begin looking at the effects. Jead Lodge has an article in a recent issue of Tree on nutrient pulses, hurricanes, and steady state. A grad student had an article in Kansas Journal that was picked up as a "hot paper" in Science News. Recently funded by NASA to look at land management and relationship to global climate and the effect of land use on forest recovery. The project also involves the Institute of Tropical Forestry and David Foster at Harvard Forest. KONZA (Knapp) - KNZ PIs are writing a synthesis volume, with Bruce Hayden to co-author the climate chapter. Konza looks at questions in tallgrass prairie belowground, whether it is a source or sink for carbon? They aare establishing a crop micrometeorlogist collaboration with DOE, USDA and others to put up four towers in burned and unburned and grazed fields to collect annual estimates. The instrumentation, which measures energy, water and carbon flux, is mostly belowground and fairly unobtrusive, making it both fire and weatherproof. JORNADA (Schlesinger) - Jornada will be featured in an upcoming article in Discover magazine that describes the entire set of measurements and an informal cross-site comparison of grassland and shrublands between Central Plains, JRN, and sites in the Great Basin comparison. HUBBARD BROOK (Fahey) - The Hubbard Brook Foundation was recently incorporated. Element cycling--particularly calcium--drives much of the work at HBR. Their annual session on birds captures the attention of the local community. Recent work shows that the neotropical bird population is declining; the big spikes in population may be linked to masking of tree seeds. HARVARD FOREST (Foster) - As a result of the augmentation proposal process, HFR has new collaborators--a paleolimnologist and a policy person from the Kennedy School of Government to look into forest management policy in the area. Several collaborative projects are ongoing with Luquillo. The site has a recent article in UPRO on wind disturbance and hurricane disturbance. They've found that synthesis papers going back to original proposal are still relevant, but they've gone back to reinterpret the landscape in light of historical events. It now appears that disturbance at the site is linked to an early significant salvage lodging operation--human rather than natural disturbance. CENTRAL PLAINS (Burke) - CPR has begun a new grazing experiment, a large study on how grazing influences soil organic matter, comparing grazed and ungrazed areas. Their interpretation: grazing creates less variation than plant presence vs. absence. They've found that the review process is a way to help the site grow. Based on the result of their site review, they have been addressing a deficit in data management. Called in Brunt (SEV), Michener (NIN), and a specialist from UC Santa Barbara for a thorough review, and they recommended adding personnel. BONANZA (Viereck) - BNZ is bringing the Caribou-Poker Creek Watershed formally into the system. Such experimental watersheds have always been a part of the University program, but not the LTER program. The site will be getting a new bridge, improving access to a number of research areas on both sides of the river. H.J. ANDREWS (Swanson) - HJA has been working with NASA and the Forest Service looking at landuse and ownerships in the Cascades and Western Washington from the early 70s to the present time, and changes to attributes, such as carbon stores. They're also conducting peak flow analysis with 40 to 50 years of data from small experimental watersheds, looking at effects of landuse, cutting and roads and changes in peak flows. The "stream team" has obtained funding from other sources to install restoration experiments. Those installed under LTER will be compared with above- and below-treated reaches over four to five years, looking at trout growth, carbon flux and invertebrate densities. As expected, the treated reach is increasing rates of production to the aquatic community. ARCTIC TUNDRA (Hobbie) - Three new laboratories have been established with NSF support. Neal Laine visited in August. Bruce Peterson N15 addition to streams model appears to work for streams at other sites using stable isotopes. A workshop involving CWT and AND is planned). An arctic land-atmosphere group, ITEX (international tundra experiment), is using Toolik Lake in an effort involving 20 arctic sites using ARC methods and manipulations for measuring leaf growth, etc. (Judy Meyer suggested a possible collaboration with CWT.). Network Office (Vande Castle & Nottrott) John Vande Castle reported that recent technological improvements at the Network Office have enabled reprocessing of data from the LTER-NASA collaborative experiment. Thanks to the assistance of Diane Wickland's group at NASA, Mission Earth data can now be accessed, as well as the Oak Ridge biogeochemical archive including FIFE, OTTER and other datasets. The data scanner has come on-line, and the sites are being solicited for their input as to where sun photometers should be deployed. The LTER-NASA proposal for a land-cover classification/assessment is progressing; the 13 participating sites are sending evaluations to Warren Cohen (AND) for a November 1 deadline. This is presently the largest dataset in Network. Rudolf Nottrott provided a demonstration of some of the new LTERnet capabilities utilizing Mosaic public domain software. Gil Calabria, Coweeta data manager, demonstrated the Mosaic "home page" put on-line for Coweeta since the September 1994 Data Managers meeting. Most of the sites are engaged in similar activity. (Other Network Office activities not reported at the meeting: Adrienne Whitener worked with Beth O' Grady at Coweeta to organize and coordinate the LTER/CC meeting and travel and has been assisting in preparation of the budget for the upcoming Cooperative Agreement. Lynne Hendrix coordinated much of the preparations for the International LTER meeting in the United Kingdom in August and the September Data Managers meeting in Seattle. Daniel Pommert has departed the Network Office for a year in Egypt and has been replaced by Raymond Bero, recently of CERL. Stephanie Martin has been developing or is planning to develop: (1) a Mosaic version of the general LTER program information contained in the brochure (now in text form on the LTERnet gopher), (2) "LTER Fact Sheets" to feature significant LTER intersite experiments and synthesis activities, and (3) a "pocket-sized" update of the 1991 site directory. Other publicity/public information tools are being considered for development over the next budget period, to include site press packets and presentation materials, portable loaner displays on synthesis experiments, an LTER poster, a simplified brochure, and others. (Sites should contact Stephanie with any suggestions.) Canada (Bruce LaZerte) Bruce LaZerte, Aquatic Science Section, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Ontario, provided a brief overview of long-term ecological research development in Canada with a few comments on the work of his section (See brochure attached for more information--in mailed copy.) Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (Brian Brookshire) Brian Brookshire gave a presentation on the Missouri Ozark Ecosystem Project (featured in Issue #15 of the LTER Network News) and invited LTER site scientists to consider the Project for individual or multiple site investigations. (See more information attached--in mailed copy.) International Activities (Franklin) The International LTER (ILTER) steering committee met at Rothamsted Station in the United Kingdom August 27-28 with 18 members representing seven countries. The group focused primarily upon mission definition and development of an action program for improved communications among sites and scientists. (Further detail in the current issue of the Network News.) Meetings of the ILTER Steering Committee are planned for Hungary (1995), Latin America (1996), China (1997), Canada (1998), Africa (1999), and the United States (2000). The process of identifying primary ILTER participants has begun with La Selva and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). The Connectivity Committee will look at current capabilities and what it would take to bring these sites up to a comparable level or to the capacity of a node in a global network. JF noted that full partners need comparable communication and data sharing facilities, as well as a shared mission. Collaboration/LTER Affiliation JF asked the group to reflect on where we are as a network. He noted that there are many ways to incorporate other types of sites. As the network-to-network concept has evolved, we've been contacted by DOE ParkNet, NBS, individual sites like Barro Colorado and La Selva, and others who would like to have a closer relationship with the LTER Network. There has always been the question of degrees of comparability in terms of technical capability, various levels of an extended network. It is no longer in LTER's best interests, JF noted, to "stiff-arm" these approaches. LTER needs to develop mechanisms and criteria for an expanded approach to incorporate other sites. The pressure is growing to actively engage this subject, and we'll be in a much better position if we look ahead. We can't claim we're too busy. For the near-term, NSF has chosen the alternative of augmenting existing sites, but we can't rely solely on NSF support if we want a better-distributed network. By what criteria would you recognize a partner? What do we do about single sites, not affiliated with networks? Among the comments: (1) We shouldn't be so strict in selecting affiliates (2) We should include non-LTER sites as question-driven affiliates (3) If formalizing a partnership, do we add expectations and/or responsibilities? (4) What is the time drain for the sites? (5) Will an increase in collaboration dilute site work? (6) What is the scientific payoff? (7) What would the impact be on the Network Office? (8) The partner's sponsoring agency should have to buy in and support the site(s) at the LTER level (9) The Memoranda of Agreement might be an appropriate mechanism for collaborations (10) We need a list of criteria, a classification for partnership before we can proceed (11) The intensity of the relationship should vary with the level of affiliation (12) The network-of-networks idea seems to be developing as an exchange between equals, a way out of increasing responsibilities (13) The LTER Network might evolve into acting as a clearinghouse, rather than the top of the pyramid, for the long-term. Bruce Hayden noted that the Hungarians seek a blessing from the LTER/CC and have indicated that they will do all that LTER does. They want a stamp of LTER approval and some benefit of affiliation, and they intend to redesign their terrestrial ecology program based on the LTER model. Such programs want to do research with us, learn techniques and technologies, but they are also looking for sources of money and ways to leverage dollars within their own countries. One initial approach, already being explored through the ILTER network, is for individual sites to identify and develop question-driven satellite sites. It was decided that a subgroup of the Executive Committee would be developed to explore alternative ideas on how to proceed on this issue. LTER/CC Meeting Schedule Next LTER/CC Meeting: April 19-25, 1995. This will be a small meeting at the Virginia Coast Reserve site. Travel will be via the Norfolk airport. Meeting and travel details will be sent via electronic mail from the Network Office as usual. Fall 1995 LTER/CC Meeting: JF suggested that the October meeting be held at Skamania Lodge on the Columbia River near Portland, Oregon instead of in Seattle at the Network Office as previously announced. Other suggestions included (1) Tucson, Arizona in conjunction with a biosphere program meeting (Jordan Hastings/MCM) and (2) Lincoln, Nebraska at the Soil Conservation Service (James Gosz/NSF). The date and location were not finalized. Next All Scientists Meeting JF suggested the group revisit the issue of where to site and what time of year to hold the next All Scientists Meeting. He noted that alternative times of year would allow use of university campuses, which tend to be lower-cost than commercial facilities. Summer is not good because of conflicting society meetings and field seasons. January is not suitable because the two Antarctic sites are fully involved in their field season at that time and would not be able to participate. During discussion it was suggested that the meeting be scheduled to follow the ESA meeting, thus saving on travel cost and presentation/ poster development time, or that it be located at the Keystone Center, Snowbird, or Jackson Hole. Jerry polled the sites for time-of-year preferences and most preferred mid-September or January. It was decided to meet in mid-September 1995 as in 1993. Executive Committee Position Nominees Requested Nominees are requested for a replacement for Tim Seastedt on the Executive Committee. Send names to Jerry Franklin via electronic mail by December 15. - --- End of forwarded message from Stephanie Martin ------- End of Forwarded Message From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Dec 15 12:47:17 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05535; Thu, 15 Dec 94 12:47:15 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22852; 15 Dec 94 12:47 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18031; Thu, 15 Dec 94 09:44:06 PST Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:44:06 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: EPA funding opportunities, new (fwd) To: PI@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR EPA has announced plans for a new program of grants and fellowships for environmental research to be carried out by universities. The program will double the Agency's existing research grants program in FY 1995 with an additional $22 million. EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) will be soliciting applications from universities and will jointly work with NSF to evaluate proposals. The program will fund research in areas of ecosystems, environmental technologies, global change, and socioeconomic issues. ORD will also seek applications from graduate students under a new fellowship program for environmentally-related studies. ORD expects to issue 100 fellowships totaling $4 - $5 million in FY 1995. The fellowships will provide 2-year support for masters students and 3-year support for doctoral students. Solicitations for the fellowships will be issues in mid-December and those for the grants will be in early January, 1995. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CALL EPA ORD AT 202-260-7473. From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Dec 15 14:49:54 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06055; Thu, 15 Dec 94 14:49:52 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23007; 15 Dec 94 14:49 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19970; Thu, 15 Dec 94 11:49:11 PST Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:49:10 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Sender: Stephanie Martin Reply-To: Stephanie Martin Subject: Re: EPA funding opportunities, new (fwd) To: PI@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Cc: kNadelhof@lternet.washington.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR My earlier message about new EPA funding opportunities was forwarded from another source, and I've just learned that the contact phone number listed is not functioning or not being answered. I called the administrative office and learned that the best way to receive further information on these grants and fellowships is to send a request via fax including your name, address and phone number (important if you have specific questions) to the attention of: Virginia Broadway EPA-ORD Fax: 202-260-0211 The administrative office phone number for ORD is 202-260-7676. Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office =========================================================================== From jvc@lternet.washington.edu Fri Dec 16 19:44:01 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10132; Fri, 16 Dec 94 19:43:59 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15840; 16 Dec 94 19:43 EST Received: from time.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07270; Fri, 16 Dec 94 16:43:58 PST Received: by time.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10136; Fri, 16 Dec 94 16:41:45 PST Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 16:41:45 -0800 (PST) From: John Vande Castle Subject: EPA Graduate Fellowship Solicitation (fwd) To: Student research group , LTER Principal Investigators Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORS From: ARNOLD KUZMACK 202-260-5821 Subject: EPA Graduate Fellowship Solicitation PLEASE FORGIVE THE CROSS-POSTING. WE WANT THIS TO GET THE WIDEST POSSIBLE CIRCULATION. EPA-600-F-94-041 1995 Announcement for Graduate Student Fellowships Sponsored by the UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APPLICATION SUBMISSION CLOSING DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1995 Apply to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Office of Exploratory Research (8703) 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 SOLICITATION FOR GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS - 1995 OFFICE OF EXPLORATORY RESEARCH INTRODUCTION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites applications for graduate fellowships in academic disciplines at the forefront of environmental science and technology: the physical, biological, and social sciences; mathematics and computer science; and engineering. These fellowships are intended to help defray costs associated with advanced environmentally-oriented study leading to the masters or doctoral degree. EPA expects to award approximately 100 new multi-year graduate fellowships in 1995. The remainder of this notice presents pertinent background information and describes the application and review process. BACKGROUND The mission of the EPA is to provide leadership in the nation's environmental science, research, education, and assessment efforts; make sound regulatory and program decisions; and carry out effective programs and policies to improve and preserve the quality of the national and global environment. Science and technology are central to virtually every aspect of environmental protection and seem certain to take on progressively greater importance during the foreseeable future. Both the public and private sectors will need a steady stream of well-trained environmental scientists and engineers if our society is to meet the environmental challenges of the future. Through its office of Research and Development, the EPA is anticipating that need by offering financial assistance for advanced study in academic disciplines relevant to its mission. ELIGIBILITY Applicants must be citizens of the United States or its territories or possessions, or lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. EPA graduate fellowships are intended for students already enrolled in a full-time graduate program at an accredited U.S. college or university. Women, minorities, and disabled students who are pursuing graduate degrees in one of the eligible fields are especially encouraged to apply. TENURE The term of a graduate fellowship is negotiated with students and ordinarily covers a period of 9 to 12 months for each fellowship year; funds for unutilized months are forfeited. Students seeking a masters degree are supported for a maximum period of two years; students seeking doctoral degrees are supported for a maximum period of three years. STIPENDS AND ALLOWANCES The Graduate Fellowship Program provides up to $34,000 per year of support. A maximum of $68,000 will be provided for masters fellows (2 years) while doctoral fellows can receive up to $102,000 in support (3 years). Individuals accepting this support may not concurrently hold other Federal scholarships, fellowships, or traineeships. The $34,000 annual support covers stipend, tuition, and expenses as follows: Stipends during l995-96 will be $17,000 for 12-month tenures and prorated monthly at a maximum of $1,417 for shorter periods. Stipends are paid directly to the Fellow. At its discretion, each fellowship institution may supplement a Fellow's stipend from institutional funds in accordance with the supplementation policy of the fellowship institution. Tuition support will be up to $12,000 per year, depending upon the policies of the fellowship institution, paid directly to the institution. An expense allowance of up to $5,000 (paid to the institution) will be provided for the direct benefit of the fellow, e.g., for health insurance, books, supplies, and travel to scientific meetings. EVALUATION AND SELECTION Each applicant will be evaluated in terms of his/her potential for successful graduate study, as evidenced by academic records, faculty recommendations, and career goals and objectives. Applicants pursuing a masters degree will be evaluated further on their outlined plan of study and/or proposed thesis research. Applicants pursuing the doctoral degree will be evaluated further on the technical merit of their plan of proposed dissertation research and its relevance to the EPA mission. Panels of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers selected by EPA will perform the reviews. In the review process, the applicants will fall into two categories: masters and doctoral. Students seeking a masters degree will compete against each other, and students seeking a doctoral degree will compete against each other. Selections of awardees will be made by EPA based on the panel evaluations, program goals, and availability of funds. The written evaluation summarizing the review panel's findings will be made available to the applicant. HOW TO APPLY Interested students may request an application from the following sources: Campus offices of Graduate Deans, Deans of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Departments, and Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies. or Virginia E. Broadway Attn: Graduate Fellowships Office of Exploratory Research (8703) Room 3102, NEM 40l M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 E-MAIL BROADWAY.VIRGINIA@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Fax No: 202-260-0211 Application A complete application consists of the following documents: EPA Form 5770-2 (pages 1 and 2), "Fellowship Application" - Submit an original and two copies. EPA Form 5770-4, "Fellowship Applicant Qualifications Inquiry" - Recommendations from three scientists or faculty members are required. EPA Form 5700-49, "Debarment and Suspension Certification" - This form should be signed by the applicant. One page statement outlining Plan of Study and/or Proposed Thesis Research. - This applies to those students seeking a masters degree. The statement should be co-signed by the applicant and sponsor. A statement (up to five pages) summarizing Plan of Proposed Dissertation Research - This applies to those students seeking a doctoral degree. The statement should be co-signed by the applicant and sponsor. Academic transcripts. Transcripts must bear the official institutional seal. PLEASE NOTE: Each applicant should arrange with registrars and sponsors to have transcripts and recommendations mailed to the applicant in sealed envelopes. The original Form 5770-2 (and two copies), sealed transcript(s), sealed recommendations, and statement of study/research plans should be placed in one envelope and mailed to the following address: Virginia Broadway Office of Exploratory Research (8703) Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room NE 3102 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Telephone No: 202-260-7473 Applications will be considered invalid if all of the components (see above) are not mailed to EPA in the same envelope. February 13, 1995: Deadline for receipt of application. It is the applicant's responsibility to meet the deadline. If the application is mailed within five (5) days prior to receipt date, it is recommended that express mail or courier service be used. Mid-April 1995: EPA will notify all applicants regarding their status. The letters of notification will be sent to each applicant's permanent address. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GRADUATE STUDENT FELLOWSHIPS Fields of Specialization Engineering Physics and Astronomy 6240 Agriculture 8180 Optics 6245 Ocean 8200 Physics of Fluids 6250 Bioengineering 8210 Plasma 6330 Chemical 8220 Solid State 6350 Civil 8260 Theoretical Physics 6388 Computer Engineering 8299 Physics, other (specify) 6390 Electrical and Electronic 6476 Materials Life Sciences 6532 Engineering Science 0250 Forestry 6580 Industrial 0300 Horticulture 6585 Systems Engineering 0999 Biochemistry 6620 Mechanical 1299 Biophysics 6716 Petroleum 1545 Plant Pathology 6799 Engineering, other (specify) 1599 Botany(including Plant 9996 Environmental Physiology) 1820 Cell Biology Mathematical Sciences 1822 Structural Biology 7050 Applications of Mathematics 1829 Neurosciences 7150 Probability and Statistics 1830 Ecology 7199 Mathematics, other (specify) 1870 Biological Oceanography 1874 Marine Biology Computer and Information Science 1880 Molecular Biology and Engineering 1899 Biology 7210 Computer Science - languages 2299 Life Sciences, other (specify) and systems 2499 Genetics 7220 Software Engineering 3299 Microbiology 7230 Database Systems 3899 Pathology 7240 Artificial Intelligence 4510 Anatomy (including robotics and 4570 Entomology expert systems) 4590 Fish and Wildlife 7250 Information Technology 4699 Zoology and Organizations 9992 Environmental Sciences 7270 Computer Systems Design (including signal processing) Psychology (Clinical Psychology not eligible) 7280 Scientific Computing 4158 Physiological 7290 Networks and Communication 4190 Social 7299 CISE, other (specify) 4199 Psychology, other (specify) Chemistry Social Sciences 5230 Analytical 0693 Biological Anthropology 5290 Inorganic 0695 Cultural Anthropology 5330 Organic 0697 Physical Anthropology 5331 Polymer 0699 Anthropology, other (specify) 5350 Physical 8599 Economics (Business Administration 5370 Theoretical not eligible) 5399 Chemistry, other (specify) 8799 Geography (excluding Physical) 9994 Environmental 9399 Political Science 9499 International Relations Earth Sciences 9599 Sociology (Social Work not 5740 Geochemistry eligible) 5760 Geography (Physical) 9699 Urban and Regional Planning 5779 Marine Sciences 9818 Demography 5780 Geology 9899 Social Sciences, other 5800 Geophysics (specify) 5845 Hydrology 5860 Paleontology and Paleobotany 5889 Earth Sciences 7400 Atmospheric Sciences 7799 Physical Oceanography 9993 Environmental From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Dec 19 12:42:03 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14786; Mon, 19 Dec 94 12:41:56 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab26828; 19 Dec 94 12:41 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06055; Mon, 19 Dec 94 09:40:41 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA11877; Mon, 19 Dec 1994 10:39:24 -0700 Message-Id: <9412191739.AA11877@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 10:39:24 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Status: OR --- Forwarded mail from "James R. Gosz" >From jgosz@nsf.gov Mon Dec 19 10:32:34 1994 Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05982; Mon, 19 Dec 94 09:33:48 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA47061 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 19 Dec 1994 12:33:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199412191733.AA47061@note1.nsf.gov> To: jgosz@lternet.edu Subject: New House Science Comm. Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 12:33:27 EST From: "James R. Gosz" The New House Science Committee Chairman Sets Agenda FYI No. 169, December 16, 1994 Wednesday afternoon, the incoming chairman of the newly-renamed House Committee on Science held a briefing to explain his committee's agenda for 1995. At the end of the hour-long presentation, it was clearly evident that Robert Walker (R-PA) has a clear view of where he wants to take his committee. Rep. Walker's views are important from a number of perspectives: as chairman of the House Science Committee, vice chairman of the House Budget Committee, and as a key player in the House Republican leadership. Because of the great interest in the direction of science policy and funding in the new Congress, this FYI is of an extended length. Topics are shown in capital letters. Walker began by noting current chairman GEORGE BROWN's (D-CA) presence, saying "we intend to work in close cooperation on developing the agenda of this committee, as we have done in the past...I assure you that our continued working relationship will serve the best interests of science and the country." Addressing the COMMITTEE'S NEW NAME, Walker said that dropping the words "technology" and "space" is not an indication that the committee was diminishing the importance of these areas. He noted that it was keeping its current jurisdiction, and was adding energy research, oceanography, and other responsibilities. The NEW SUBCOMMITTEE NAMES (Space and Aeronautics, Basic Research, Energy and Environment, and Technology) "reflect what the true priorities of this committee will be over the next couple of years." Walker said FULL COMMITTEE HEARINGS will be "related to the future." An early January hearing will receive testimony from relevant cabinet members asking them "to look at the next century, and tell us what they think their various agencies and departments should be doing to prepare us for the new economy and the new culture...." NASA has already agreed to participate. The SUBCOMMITTEES will work "aggressively" on MULTI-YEAR AUTHORIZATION bills for NASA, DOE, NSF, and NOAA. Walker hopes for better cooperation from the Senate in passing these bills than there has been in the past. This should help, he later said, to place science policy decisions back in the authorization committees. The subcommittees will also be charged with doing "a lot" of oversight activity. "As chairman of the committee, what I'd like to do is engage in a DIALOGUE with the American people, the SCIENCE COMMUNITY, and with my colleagues which reasserts the value of science as a means for bringing our country a future of sustained growth built on new discoveries, and based upon improved technology that's derived from those new discoveries," Walker said. The new chairman predicted that his committee will highlight how ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT and reduced regulations will nurture an environment conducive to being able to "invent our ways out of crises." As an example, he plans to act soon on the House-passed HYDROGEN RESEARCH BILL, which died upon adjournment. "In my view, real science is not something that should be used to confirm a political agenda," Walker stated. He predicted early hearings on MISSION TO PLANET EARTH, the GLOBAL WARMING PROGRAM, and a number of other programs where he said there have been "concerns raised about whether some of the science being done is more in tune with politics than it is with real scientific measurement." Walker said he wants to ensure that the Mission to Planet Earth program is "going in the right direction." In fulfilling the committee's portion of the Republican Contract with America, Walker said that he would act "very quickly" on RISK ASSESSMENT LEGISLATION. Regarding the SPACE STATION, Walker described himself as an "enthusiast," and said the committee will move "aggressively on" the program. He later said, "As far as I am concerned, it's certainly safe," adding "Republicans have always been pretty supportive of space station...." Walker supports incentives for commercial space activities, and has already talked with the new House Ways and Means chairman. Asked about future NASA FUNDING, Walker replied, "I believe that the space program, if it is going to maintain its ability to be a technological driver in our society, has to at least get resources enough to allow it to keep up with inflation." Walker wants to get more nongovernmental space funding, saying, "I don't think that everything we do in space has to come through the front door of NASA." He later expressed support for the "small sat" program. The new chairman wants the committee to be "dramatically involved" in EDUCATION, citing its jurisdiction over the National Science Foundation. He continued, "I believe in UNIVERSITY-BASED RESEARCH," saying that some federal science centers should move to a university association. He cited NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory as a model. Walker characterized Rep. Brown's moves against academic EARMARKING as courageous. "That is work we will continue in this Congress." Walker will work for a way to penalize academic institutions seeking earmarks. "They need to know that if they try to by-pass us, there may be a penalty for them in so doing." He will work with the appropriations committee to prevent earmarking. During a question period, Walker was asked about NIST's TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS. He said he was supportive of NIST's core program "that provides a very, very important role for our country," citing standards-setting. "I am less than enthusiastic about some of the places where they have moved toward becoming the font of national industrial programs; the ATP Programs [Advanced Technology Program] and some things of that type. I would rather divert some of the monies that are headed in that direction toward the core program...." He later said he favors the ultimate elimination of ATP. "We are probably going to look at the ELIMINATION OF SUCH AGENCIES," Walker said, when asked about a Republican Budget Committee staff memo suggesting that USGS and the Bureau of Mines be eliminated. In regard to specific agencies, Walker said, "I don't know." Insofar as the Office of Technology Assessment, he declared, "I have an open mind on that; I believe that they have done some valuable work." He wants the office restructured to "be more relevant to the legislative process." Walker later added that his committee will work closely with the appropriations committee if any programs are defunded. He was "not prepared" to discuss specific programs. Walker indicated his continued support for a new cabinet-level DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE. He is awaiting the administration's plans for downsizing the federal government. Such a department would "ensure that there is a voice for science at the cabinet table." When asked about FUSION PROGRAM funding, Walker replied: "I think we need to take a look at the money we have been spending in the fusion area. It's certainly an area that we have to look at in hearings; the Department of Energy may be coming forth with some recommendations in that area.... What we can't afford to do is to have massive cost overruns in that program. It is a program where there has been a lot invested over a period of a lot of years. And I think it now needs to be examined very, very carefully in light of a lot of budget constraints that we're going to have." Later in the briefing, discussion returned to the DOE FUSION PROGRAM, and Tokamak funding. "I am concerned about the fact that that particular project has gone up in cost by about 50%, and as a result, has captured my attention," Walker exclaimed. He said he "was not prepared to make that kind of judgement" when asked about shutting down magnetic fusion research. Walker supports international cooperation for expensive programs. The new chairman was also asked about the NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION. "I will tell you that my own bias with regard to NSF is toward having NSF be essentially a basic science agency, rather than an applied science agency. I believe that too much of NSF money is getting diverted these days toward applied research. And I would like to see NSF be far more concentrated on being a basic research kind of agency, supporting basic research at the university level." When asked about a Republican Budget Committee staff suggestion to limit budget increases for NSF, Walker replied, "I don't know. I'm not familiar with the staff document. I wasn't on the Budget Committee at that point." He then spoke of his, and incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R-GA) long-standing desire "to see these programs move forward. I don't think that has changed. How much we are able to do with the constraints...and the need to approve our balanced budget, I'm not sure yet." Walker said that his service as Vice-Chairman of the House Budget Committee will be important in this regard. At the end of the briefing, Walker spoke of a commonality of science and technology interests with the WHITE HOUSE. He advocated cooperation between his committee and White House policy makers on moving programs forward. --- End of forwarded message from "James R. Gosz" From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Dec 19 12:53:58 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14875; Mon, 19 Dec 94 12:53:49 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29163; 19 Dec 94 12:53 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06224; Mon, 19 Dec 94 09:54:16 PST Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 09:54:16 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Re: On-Line Datasets-Addition & Inclusion in Next Newsletter (fwd) To: PI@lternet.washington.edu, dman@lternet.washington.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Rick Ingersoll has brought me up-to-date about the information he has pulled together on on-line datasets across the Network. His project was apparently completed prior to the recent LTER/CC meeting where representatives were asked to identify a "favorite" dataset that would be on-line by January. For the wider audience the newsletter reaches, his chart is probably the most comprehensive format for presenting the information. He has agreed to provide an introduction and an update for the next newsletter. Please disregard my earlier request for information about which datasets to highlight for your site. Thank you, Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Dec 21 13:37:59 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA22208; Wed, 21 Dec 94 13:37:58 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29896; 21 Dec 94 13:37 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18444; Wed, 21 Dec 94 10:33:37 PST Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:33:36 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Re: Help on "Nuggets" To: "James T. Callahan" Cc: pi@lternet.edu In-Reply-To: <199412192028.AA16751@note1.nsf.gov> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I'd appreciate receiving a copy of any responses on this. Good ideas for newsletter articles may be found therein. Thanks, and happy holidays! =========================================================================== Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications/Public Info. AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) =========================================================================== On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, James T. Callahan wrote: > Folks- > > In preparation for our arguments in your behalf for $$$ in FY 96 and beyond, > we ask that you comb through your actual and virtual files for interesting, > meaningful, and currents advances in science. Items should be 1 or 2 para > graphs in length, intersting to and readable by an educated layperson, and > current in terms of the work of your project. > > Please respond to both me and Mike Allen not later than January 5, 1995. > > Here's hoping that the Holiday Season brings only good things - and lots > of them - to you and to your loved ones. > > Thanks for all your hard work and help now and in the past. > > > Tom Callahan > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Dec 21 13:43:07 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA22227; Wed, 21 Dec 94 13:43:06 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00922; 21 Dec 94 13:43 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18510; Wed, 21 Dec 94 10:42:17 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00965; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 11:40:57 -0700 Message-Id: <9412211840.AA00965@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 11:40:57 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: Stephanie Martin Subject: Re: Help on "Nuggets" Cc: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR Stephanie I think that many of the "site bites" that were presented at the CC meeting at Coweeta could be worked into "nuggets". jim From jgosz@nsf.gov Wed Dec 21 22:53:17 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01020; Wed, 21 Dec 94 22:53:15 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05976; 21 Dec 94 22:53 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22161; Wed, 21 Dec 94 19:53:07 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA18470 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 21 Dec 1994 22:52:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199412220352.AA18470@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: DOE - Near Miss! Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 22:52:45 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Near Miss: Department of Energy Avoids Termination December 20, 1994 At noon yesterday, President Clinton announced $10.6 billion in proposed cuts in the Department of Energy's budget over the next five years. It could have been worse: there has been considerable speculation in Washington over the last few days that the administration might have recommended DOE's termination. However, the Department of Energy, and physics-related research sponsored by DOE, are by no means out of the woods. Congressional Republicans will offer a counter proposal to President Clinton's FY 1996 budget request containing deeper budget cuts. Shortly before the president's announcement, new Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) was asked if Republicans would recommend termination of cabinet departments. His response: "Absolutely, I wouldn't be surprised if there are two." Last November, incoming Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) cited DOE as a possible target, saying "I don't see any useful purpose it serves. It can be wrapped into something else." Yesterday's White House announcement was accompanied by a "Highlights" document explaining the proposed DOE budget cuts. They are: 1.) termination of the clean coal program, 2.) privatization of the Naval Petroleum Reserves, 3.) sale of uranium, 4.) streamlining nuclear waste clean-up, and 5.) "significantly reduce costs in DOE's applied research programs through requiring more cost-sharing and through cuts in lower priority programs." At an afternoon briefing, DOE Deputy Secretary Bill White stated that many funding decisions must yet be made. DOE's budget is $17.7 billion, most of which goes to contractors. He said they are going "to be expected to run their business like you would a normal business in a competitive market, rather than as some kind of government contracting operation with a semi-entitlement mentality." Citing the $10.6 billion in proposed cuts, White said, "these numbers may change, but not the bottom line. The bottom line we are planning on. The allocation within the five year savings may change based upon a number of activities which...the department is doing, and our review of additional information we get about different things...." White said the total could ultimately be higher. The first activity White discussed was the [Robert] Galvin Commission examining DOE's national laboratories, "which are so important to this nation, and which are at the heart of this department's operations. Those laboratories are extremely valuable national assets, but we want to make sure that they are run in a way that is competitive with what you would see in the private sector, and that they respond to real needs of not only the Department of Energy but the whole community of users who depend on Department of Energy programs for the applied research done at those laboratories. And that includes the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, and private enterprise.... What the Galvin Commission says about those labs and their operations...will be critical in figuring out how we allocate the $10.6 billion." White was asked how DOE could fund the Advanced Neutron Source, ITER, and TPX under this budget climate. He was specifically asked if fusion projects "are essentially dead." White's reply: "That might be premature. It means that before we undertake a major new project we have some hard choices that we're going to make, and we are making them. It means that we won't submit budgets that the Secretary [O'Leary] and I saw when we first got here that showed this slope of increasing out years [costs].... With respect to individual projects, we are both doing a review and preparation for the finalization of the 1996 budget to be submitted.... And with respect to fusion in particular, there is an advisory group that is going to assist us in making a choice on that program.... You have obviously spotted some issues there that are the same issues that we are confronting." An additional question was asked about the national laboratories, and whether DOE had already decided to close a lab or a technology center. White responded: "The Galvin Commission is going to...tell us what we can do with the labs." He added, referring to the physics advisory group, "That is, and let's be quite candid, what is the extent of future commitments that we make on fusion projects and the like. But that decision, the decision concerning particular facilities, has not been made." The Galvin Commission is scheduled to report in February. White doubts that any decisions will be made before DOE's FY 1996 budget request is sent to Congress in February. from: Public Information Division American Institute of Physics From jgosz@nsf.gov Wed Dec 21 22:57:48 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01100; Wed, 21 Dec 94 22:57:47 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06265; 21 Dec 94 22:57 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22173; Wed, 21 Dec 94 19:58:05 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA23345 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 21 Dec 1994 22:57:43 -0500 Message-Id: <199412220357.AA23345@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: House Science Committee Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 22:57:43 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Today Rep Walker announced the new chairs of the Subcommittees for the House Science Committee. They are: Subcommittee on Basic Research: Rep Steve Schiff (R-NM) Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics: Rep James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) Subcommittee on Technology: Rep Connie Morella (R-MD) Subcommittee on Energy and Environment: Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Some of you out there may have ways of interacting with these individuals! From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Dec 27 18:42:40 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27936; Tue, 27 Dec 94 18:42:39 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27612; 27 Dec 94 18:42 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14272; Tue, 27 Dec 94 15:40:44 PST Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 15:40:44 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Interdisciplinary Conference, Jun 21-25, FYI To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmer@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This conference may be of interest to some of you or your colleagues. As with any national or international conferences or meetings which you may attend, feel free to contact me for LTER Network materials to distribute or display, if you deem it appropriate. Stephanie Martin Publications & Public Information Network Office =========================================================================== INTERDISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT *********************************************** Park Plaza Hotel and Towers BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA, June 21-25, 1995 CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS The Interdisciplinary Environmental Association (IEA) in conjunction with Assumption College invites you to participate in the FIRST MAJOR INTERDISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT! We take the initiative to organize this conference because of the increasing need to combine ideas and research findings from different disciplines to enhance our understanding of how nature works and how the interactions between the natural environment and human institutions are globally interconnected. The conference is aimed at the layperson and it FOCUSES on: (I) What do different disciplines have to offer with respect to environmental and resource problems, their solutions, and the institutions associated with them? (II) What are the implications of the globalization of environmental concerns for all life on planet Earth? The conference is open to all ideologies, political persuasions, and academic as well as nonacademic disciplines. Participants may organize sessions (please ask for "Session Organizer Guidelines"), present papers, chair sessions, discuss papers, or simply observe. To facilitate communication papers must be written at a layperson's level and they will pass a peer review process prior to presentation and publication in the Conference Proceedings. Awards will be given to outstanding papers. With your help we hope to disseminate the Conference Proceedings all over the world to libraries, legislators, governmental agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. The program will consist of small seminar - type sessions meeting concurrently as follows: chairperson, three or four presenters, with at least one discussant assigned to comment on each paper. (Other formats, such as moderator and panelists, also might be used.) Time allocated for each session is one hour and 45 minutes. Additionally, the program will have one general session panel with invited speakers. * To ORGANIZE SESSIONS please ask for "Session Organizer Guidelines". Submission fees for one or two papers are waived for papers in organized sessions. * To participate as a PRESENTER: - Please, submit 3 copies of one or two papers before or on February 28, 1995; - The submission fee is $20 per paper. - Each manuscript should be accompanied by an abstract of no more than 100 words; - Manuscripts of more than 10 single-spaced pages will not be considered; - Papers must not have been published, accepted, or submitted for publication elsewhere; - Because papers will be evaluated using a blind review process authorship should be identified only on a removable cover page; - The discipline that fits best your paper should be typed on the top right corner of the cover page; - For coauthorships please include names, affiliations, and addresses of all authors on your cover page and indicate who will serve as paper presenter; - All papers presented in the conference will be published in the Conference Proceedings. Instructions on style will be attached to the acceptance letter; - The title of your paper(s) is (are): __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ * If you wish to serve as a DISCUSSANT and/or a SESSION CHAIR please indicate below the disciplines of your preference. "Session Chair and Discussant Guidelines" as well as copies of the papers to be discussed will be mailed to you as soon as the sessions are organized. Disciplines____________________________________________________ CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FORM Last Name______________________________________________________ First Name and M.I.____________________________________________ Nickname for Badge_____________________________________________ Position/Title/Rank____________________________________________ Mailing Address________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Telephone: Day (___)________________ , Night (___)__________________ Fax: (___)________________ , E-Mail: _______________________________ CONFERENCE FEES (DUE FEBRUARY 28,1995) 1. Registration $230 x __ = ______ 2. Student Registration (verification required) $130 x __ = ______ 3. Paper Submission Fee $20 x__ = ______ 4. After February 28, 1995 Add Late Fee $50 x __ =______ 5. Guest Fee $50 x __ = ______ Total Amount Due = ______ Note: Registration fees include "guest speakers - awards" luncheon, one copy of the Conference Proceedings, membership to the IEA, and all other conference expenses. Payments: ___ My check is attached payable to IEA (in U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. bank). ___ Please charge my ___Visa or ___ MasterCard. Credit Card Number______________________________Exp. Date___________ Authorized Signature________________________________________ Refunds: Individuals applying for program participation but not accepted are eligible for fee refunds. Cancellations must be in writing and are subject to a $20 handling fee. No refunds will be given for cancellations after March 30, 1995. Refunds will be processed after conference. HOTEL RESERVATION: Boston Park Plaza Hotel and Towers * Housing in Boston is very limited. Please make reservations early! __ Double or __ Single * Special Conference Rate : $99 plus tax. * First night's deposit required with reservation. * Check-in time: 2:00 pm, Check-out time: 12:00 pm. * First night's deposit: ___ My check is attached payable to Park Plaza Hotel and Towers (in U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. bank). ___ Please charge my ___Visa or ___ MasterCard. Credit Card Number______________________________Exp. Date___________ Authorized Signature________________________________________ For more information on housing please contact: Park Plaza Hotel and Towers 64 Arlington Street, Boston MA 02116-3912, Tel: (617) 426-2000, Fax: (617) 423-1708 Reservations Tel: (800) 225-2008 For more information or for anything else you might need please Mail, Call, Fax, or E-mail to: CONFERENCE CHAIR: Dr Demetri Kantarelis IEA, Economics/Foreign Affairs Dept Assumption College 500 Salisbury street Worcester, MA 01615-0005, USA Tel: (508) 767-7557 Fax: (508) 799-4502 E-mail: dkantar@eve.assumption.edu CONFERENCE CO-CHAIR: Professor Kevin Hickey IEA, Economics/Foreign Affairs Dept Assumption College 500 Salisbury street Worcester, MA 01615-0005, USA Tel: (508) 767-7296 Fax :(508) 799-4502 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT TO YOUR COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS. THANKS! From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Jan 3 15:04:00 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01192; Tue, 3 Jan 95 15:03:59 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03274; 3 Jan 95 15:03 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11050; Tue, 3 Jan 95 12:02:04 PST Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 12:02:04 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT--James R. Gosz Assumes Duties as LTER Chair To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, NET@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR JAMES GOSZ ASSUMES DUTIES AS LTER COORDINATING COMMITTEE CHAIR On January 1, 1995, Dr. James R. Gosz officially assumed his new duties as elected chair of the LTER Network Coordinating Committee and director of the LTER Network Office at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Gosz will be working closely with outgoing chair Dr. Jerry F. Franklin over the next year to ensure a smooth transition in leadership and the functions of the coordination office. Franklin will continue to be involved in the LTER Program, providing administrative assistance to Gosz and chairing international LTER (ILTER) activities during 1995. His eventual goal is to shift back into major scientific involvement in intersite LTER projects and to produce a book on the LTER sites and program for general audiences. During 1995, Dr. Gosz will be on sabbatical from his University of New Mexico faculty position, allowing him to concentrate on his new LTER responsibilities. As LTER Chair, he will seek to build expanded relationships between LTER and other agencies, societies and government on the values and scientific advancements of long-term research programs and dedicated research sites, including comparisons with non-LTER sites and research efforts. Gosz also hopes to oversee the development of additional communication infrastructure and enhanced national and international Network-wide computational abilities, as well as expanded public education programs. ******************************** end *************************************** From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Thu Jan 5 10:46:25 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07389; Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:46:24 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09680; 5 Jan 95 10:46 EST Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24603; Thu, 5 Jan 95 07:46:20 PST Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09498; 5 Jan 95 10:44 EST Received: from [128.143.42.13] by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07382; Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:44:44 EST Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:44:42 EST Message-Id: <9501051544.AA07382@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: PI@lternet.edu From: Bruce Hayden Subject: Site Syntheis volumes Plans Status: OR the publications committee needs to know which sites are planning site synthesis volumes. There will be a report from the committee to the executive committee and then from J. Gosz to Mary Clutter. that meeting is next week so I need this info pronto!!!!! Thanks Bruce From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Thu Jan 5 11:15:13 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07593; Thu, 5 Jan 95 11:15:12 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15709; 5 Jan 95 11:15 EST Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25030; Thu, 5 Jan 95 08:13:46 PST Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15299; 5 Jan 95 11:12 EST Received: from [128.143.42.13] by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07576; Thu, 5 Jan 95 11:12:11 EST Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 11:12:10 EST Message-Id: <9501051612.AA07576@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: PI@lternet.edu From: Bruce Hayden Subject: Synthesis Contributions Status: OR More Help needed! Please (an pronto) inform me for the publications committee of the following: Edited books in which LTER scientists played the lead or leading roles. (editors or numbers of chapters) Journal Issues in which LTER scientists played the lead or leading roles. (editors or numbers of chapters) Also please advise of any other publication synthesis activities Thanks again bruce From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Jan 9 17:26:22 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21991; Mon, 9 Jan 95 17:26:20 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27911; 9 Jan 95 17:26 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21704; Mon, 9 Jan 95 14:25:24 PST Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 14:25:23 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Spring '95 newsletter topics (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, NET@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Status: OR Dear LTER PIs, students, staff, et al.: =09Below is a preliminary topics/proposed contributors list for the next LTER Network News. Please let me know if you have anything to add or if you are unable to contribute something by the deadline noted. I'll be confirming with each of those listed as contributors over the next week to discuss length, content, and other specifications. Thank you!=20 Copy (including text, photos, artwork, etc.) deadline: February 28, 1995 Spring/Summer 1995=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Proposed LTER Network News Topics & Contributors General Features:=20 =09Outgoing Chair Jerry Franklin reflects on 15 years of LTER=20 =09Incoming Chair Jim Gosz looks ahead through 1997=20 Site Features=20 =09North Temperate Lakes (J.Magnuson or T.Kratz)=20 =09Sevilleta (B. Milne or B. Parmenter) Site News (Any interesting news to report? Short items only, please)=20 =09HFR Lab Upgrade (R. Boone)=20 =09VCR News (B. Hayden) RECEIVED =09PAL News (R. Ross)=20 =09CWT (S.=09Donaldson) RECEIVED Network Office=20 =09LTER/EXEC Teleconference (Vande Castle/Nottrott) =09Newsletter readership 1987-1995 (graph, SM)=20 =09Cooperative Agreement/NET Expansion (Franklin/Gosz)=20 =09Network on-line resources (SM & R. Nottrott)=20 =09Site on-line LTER Datasets (R. Ingersoll) RECEIVED Committees (Chairs: any recent activities to report?)=20 =09Climate (D. Greenland, chair)=20 =09Data Management (J.Brunt)=20 =09Graduate Students (J. Greenberg)=20 =09Publications (B. Hayden)=20 =09Synthesis (B. Wharton)=20 =09Technology (D. Foster) National=20 =09USFS - NSF MOU (Douglas Ryan,USFS) RECEIVED =09NBS=D5 Information Infrastructure (NBII) (Trudy Harlow)=20 =09NASA Collaboration (J. Vande Castle/W. Cohen)=20 =09NSF Special Competition Awards-Recipients & Topics=20 =09Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis (R. Ross)=20 =09Cross-Site/International Research (compiled by SM)=20 =09U of WA/U of WI Graduate Freshwater Research Traineeships=20 =09LMER Program developments (J. Hobbie or D. Scanlon) =09Other agency collaborations? International=20 =09Collaboration with CERN--update? (J. Brunt)=20 =09Collaboration with Hungary--update? (D. Freckman)=20 =09ILTER activities (J. Franklin)=20 =09ERIN, Australian program (excerpted by SM) RECEIVED =09Other international collaborations?=20 Workshops=20 =09Reports on recent workshops -any?=20 =09News on upcoming workshops (info needed):=20 =09 Spring '95 xroots agroecosystem workshop (C. Bledsoe)=20 =09 7/95 conservative tracer addition to streams (D'Angelo) Publications=20 =09Recent site publications (only in press or published, please)=20 =09Recent pubns & publicity on LTER program and sites (SM)=20 =09Recent publications of interest (SM) Calendar (compiled by SM) =09Upcoming EXEC, CC & All Sci meetings=20 =09NSF program deadlines and target dates=20 =09Other funding opportunity deadlines=20 =09Other workshops and meetings of interest to LTER? NEXT ISSUE, FALL 1995:=20 =09Site features: PAL and MCM =09Other suggestions? >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->= ->-> Stephanie Martin=09 University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications/Public Information CFR, AR-10=09=09 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office=09 Seattle, WA 98195=09=09 =20 e-mail:=09sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->= ->-> From jgosz@nsf.gov Wed Jan 11 18:08:44 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28262; Wed, 11 Jan 95 18:08:42 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09681; 11 Jan 95 18:08 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10533; Wed, 11 Jan 95 15:07:44 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA19161 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 11 Jan 1995 18:07:07 -0500 Message-Id: <199501112307.AA19161@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 18:07:07 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Subject: Final report of Forum on Global Change Modeling -- Part 1 Here is the final version to be submitted for publication and sent (by Mike MacCracken) to GAO. ******** On October 12-14, a Forum on Global Change Modeling was held at the invitation of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) to help address requests from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and from Congressman Dingell to the GAO. The Forum labored to produce a consensus document and to provide the GAO representatives a sense of the debate on issues related to the use of climate models to influence policy. The charge to the panel and the report are attached. The invited participants included: Eric Barron (chair), Joyce Penner, Chuck Hakkarinen, Dan Lashof, Jerry Mahlman, Pat Michaels, Roy Jenne, Richard Lindzen, Tamara Ledley, and Tom Wigley. In addition, Mike MacCracken, Ken Bergman, Jay Fein, Mike Riches, Lowell Smith, Richard Poore, Robert Schiffer, Dave Goodrich, Courtney Riordan, Ghassem Asrar, Robert Watson, Tony Janetos, Rick Piltz and Scott Sandgathe participated as agency, congressional and OSTP representativies. The report has been positively reviewed by a wider segment of the climate community. Still, the forum participants believe that this report is just a beginning. It includes the judgement of participating experts and reviewers, as opposed to detailed arguments, on the credibility of climate model projections. However, the community needs to take the next step of elucidating fully the reasons models make the predictions that they do. This effort should be a significant part of a rational approach to determine whether models are behaving reliably. A thorough international assessment is also being conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; it is due to be published in late 1995. Summary of Discussions Forum on Global Change Modeling October 12-13, 1994 Forum charge: The charge to those attending the Forum and to those who submitted written comments is to develop a brief statement on the credibility of projections of climate change provided by General Circulation Models as background for potential interpretation of model results in the context of developing and considering national policy options. The focus of this effort is specifically on the climate aspects of the entire global change issue, and thus not on the emission scenarios, the consequences of change to ecosystems and natural resource systems, or the socio-economic implications and potential for responses. Working objective formulated by Forum participants: The attendees at the Forum decided to develop an ordered list of statements from "virtually certain" to "uncertain" that summarizes the major findings and implications stemming from climate system model experiments (most commonly with general circulation models) and the issues being debated in the scientific literature, and to express these statements in terms that indicate their potential policy relevance. The participants agreed to include with each ranked statement the basis for the consensus view. In addition, the participants at the Forum agreed to provide indications of where opportunities exist for early progress in reducing uncertainties and improving confidence in model projections. The report which follows consists of three parts. First, a number of conclusions are identified as "virtually certain", based on observations, experiments, and models. These conclusions provide a significant starting point for discussion, yet they do not directly stem from climate system model experiments. These statements are provided in part 1 as an introduction. Second, the ranked statements which refer to model experiments and predictions are given in part 2. Finally, a list of opportunities for early progress in reducing uncertainties is given in part 3. PART 1. Introduction A number of the scientific elements that are the basis of conclusions concerning future climate change do not stem directly from climate system models. In many cases, these elements are subject to little or no debate because of their level of certainty. As statements they may even appear to some as almost trivial because of the frequency with which they are stated. Yet, in concert with the response to the Forum's specific charge, these statements provide both context and conclusions on the credibility of climate models for developing and considering national policy options. Seven statements which provide this context follow: (1) Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, which includes the wavelengths of radiation emitted by atmospheric gases and clouds and by the Earth's land and oceans. Basis: Laboratory experiments with greenhouse gases and spectrally resolved studies of radiation absorption and transmission in the atmosphere indicate that a number of gases that are present in the atmosphere are capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation. The most important of these so-called greenhouse gases is water vapor. Other important natural greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide. (2) Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides and chlorofluorocarbons, the greenhouse gases, are significantly increased above preindustrial levels, and the increase is due to anthropogenic activities. Basis: Carbon dioxide: The observed atmospheric concentration is 30% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores and direct measurements. The concentration is continuing to increase. The measured (and estimated) anthropogenic sources (from fossil fuel consumption, deforestation, and agriculturally-induced oxidation of humus) are significantly larger than the anthropogenic sinks (reforestation). Changes in carbon isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon dioxide indicate that fossil carbon and biomass reduction have contributed significantly to the increase in the atmospheric concentration. There is no serious debate about the fact that fossil fuel consumption and land-use change are the contributors to increased concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Methane: The observed atmospheric concentration is more than 100% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores, and the concentration has been increasing over recent decades. Estimated changes in anthropogenic sources (e.g., agriculture, energy resource production and use) are broadly consistent with measured increases in atmospheric concentrations and are large compared to anthropogenic sinks or anthropogenically-induced reductions in emissions (e.g., reduced wetlands). Nitrous oxide: The observed atmospheric concentration is about 10% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores. Estimates of anthropogenic sources (e.g., nylon production, agriculture) are broadly consistent with measured increases in atmospheric concentrations and are large compared to anthropogenic concentrations; no anthropogenic sinks are recognized. Chlorofluorocarbons: Preindustrial concentrations were virtually zero and there are no natural sources for most of these compounds. Thus, the observed increases in atmospheric concentrations are due solely to human activities. Anthropogenic sources (e.g., refrigeration, industrial) are large; not anthropogenic sinks are recognized and natural removal processes for most CFCs have a time constant of order a century. The rise in atmospheric concentrations of regulated gases has slowed and nearly stopped due to recent reductions in emissions. Chemically active gases: The concentrations of CO, nitrogen oxides, and non-methane hydrocarbons are higher than pre-industrial values over large regions. These gases can, through a series of chemical interactions, induce changes in the lifetimes, and thus the concentrations, of radiatively active gases, including ozone and methane. As an example, the concentration of tropospheric ozone in some regions is significantly above its level in the nineteenth century. There is evidence that the concentrations of carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide have also changed over geological time. In many cases these changes have been a driving factor in the different climates that are associated with time periods of altered concentrations. Based on straight- forward physics and thermodynamics, the global concentrations of water vapor must also have changed over geologic time, acting primarily in response to the values and distribution of temperature, continental geography and orography. (3) Because of their infrared absorption, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases exert a global warming influence. As discussed in part 2, the magnitude and timing of the resulting warming is less certain. Basis: Observations and measurements of the radiative effects of greenhouse gases in the present atmosphere and the association of changes in greenhouse gas concentrations with climate changes in the geological past indicate that the resulting changes in the radiation balance from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will, in the absence of other factors changing the climate, induce global warming. The extent of the warming will be affected particularly by the strength of water vapor and cloud feedback processes, which are major factors in controlling the natural greenhouse effect and which would be expected to respond to the radiative changes induced by the changes in concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being affected by human activities. Feedbacks change the magnitude of the response, as amplifying or moderating influences, but not the sign of the response. (4) The drawdown of the augmented CO2 concentration, which is now about 30% above its preindustrial level, to near its preindustrial level would take centuries, even if emissions were to be very substantially reduced in the near future. Further, because a substantial reduction in global CO2 emissions below current levels is unlikely to occur within the next few decades, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to continue to increase. The drawdown of CFCs and nitrous oxide to their preindustrial levels would also take more than a century, even with a halt in human emissions; however, because of chemical decomposition in the atmosphere, the drawdown of the excess methane concentration to near its preindustrial level would take only several decades if emissions were to be significantly reduced. Basis: Many of the sinks of CO2 operate on long time scales. For example, while the mixed layer of the ocean (upper 75-200m) comes into near equilibrium with the changes in atmospheric CO2 relatively quickly, it takes hundreds of years to mix carbon into the deep ocean. A further basis for this statement comes from the evaluation of the plausible sinks of emitted carbon dioxide and other gases in comparison to the projected growth of world population, the dependence of the world on the use of fossil fuels for energy, present trends in agriculture and deforestation, and the expected transportation, commercial, residential, and industrial use and emission of these gases. In addition to the importance of the sources, many of the sinks of CO2 operate on longer time scales. (5) Anthropogenic aerosols are significantly increased in source regions (near and downwind of aerosol and aerosol precurser emissions). Basis. The global trend in tropospheric aerosol concentrations is uncertain. Natural sources of tropospheric aerosols include windblown dust, hydrocarbons from vegetation and forests, and soot and other products of forest and grassland fires. Increased concentrations of tropospheric aerosols are measured in and downwind of regions of anthropogenic sources, including sulfate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion and complex chemical aerosols from biomass burning. Stratospheric aerosols are largely of natural origin. Large variations in the concentrations of stratospheric aerosols are determined by volcanic eruptions and, in polar regions, by the temperature (at cold enough temperatures, atmospheric gases can condense to form aerosols). (6) Sulfate aerosols, both from volcanic injections and from fossil fuel combustion, exert a cooling influence on the climate. While the sign of the effect is well established, estimates of the magnitude, trends, and extent of the induced cooling effects are uncertain due to limitations in the observations of aerosol amount and composition, limitations in the models used to simulate the aerosol system, and due to potential indirect effects of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols through changes in cloud extent and character. Reduction of anthropogenic emissions of aerosols and aerosol precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide) would lead, over periods of weeks to months, to reductions in atmospheric concentrations of tropospheric aerosols due to relatively effective natural removal processes. However, the rates of emissions by anthropogenic sources are also uncertain. Basis: Laboratory and atmospheric measurements show that aerosols scatter solar radiation, with much of the radiation scattered in the backward direction (i.e., back out into space). Observations and model simulations indicate that large volcanic eruptions temporarily cool the climate. Observations also indicate that settling and transport move stratospheric aerosols (mostly volcanic) into the troposphere over a few years, and that tropospheric aerosols are removed by precipitation scavenging and contact with the surface within weeks to months. (7) Global average surface air temperatures are about 0.5 C (1 F) higher than average temperatures in the nineteenth century. Basis: Observational records drawn from ship and land records since about 1850, while somewhat uncertain due to changes in instrumentation, measurement and observation techniques, and station location, indicate that the world is warmer now than in the nineteenth century. Limited borehole (ground surface) and glacier meltback records also suggest generally warmer conditions during this century. This change cannot yet be unambiguously ascribed to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. Over the past century, the cooling influence of changing amounts of anthropogenic aerosols appears to have the potential, in terms of both the timing and the reduced magnitude, to explain some of the differences between observations and model predictions of the warming due to the increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone (model predictions suggest that a warming significantly greater than 0.5 C should have occurred). The natural variability of climate, on time scales of months to centuries and variously distributed over the globe, contributes to the uncertainty over the interpretation of the record. PART 2: List of Statements Concerning Results of Climate Models Ordered by Degree of Certainty: There are significant uncertainties in predicting future climates as a consequence of (a) natural climate variability; (b) the potential for uncertain or unrecognized climatic forcing factors (e.g. explosive volcanism, new or unknown anthropogenic influences, etc.); and (c) inadequate understanding of the climate system ( e.g., a recent discovery that clouds absorb significant shortwave radiation which is not included in models, or potential errors in fluxes at the top of the atmosphere associated with changes in relative humidity). These uncertainties may (or may not) lead to re-assessment of model capability. We must expect that new observations or results from process studies may yield information that causes us to re-evaluate and improve the capability of climate models. Our estimates of the credibility of climate system models can, of necessity, be consistent only with known facts and based only on the "best" current knowledge. Further, the list given below is not a "forecast" but rather a scientific judgment based on the assumption that the concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases will increase. Many of the model experiments on which these points are based have an even more specific assumption, a scenario of a 1% per year increase in CO2 to mimic the radiative forcing of the projected increease in the concentrations of all greenhouse gases. Virtually Certain: (1) Large stratospheric cooling will result from the increase in CO2 concentration and ozone depletion; the start of such cooling has been predicted by models and observed in the upper stratosphere. Basis: Increased emission of infrared radiation is an automatic consequence of the increased infrared optical depth in the stratosphere due to the increased concentration of CO2. This will lead to cooling in the upper stratosphere, and satellite observations and other records show this is occurring. In the lower stratosphere, temperature changes due to increased CO2 concentrations are complicated by the changes in ozone concentration due to volcanic aerosols, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrogen oxides from aircraft, and changes in tropospheric chemistry (further affected by other surface emissions), which can variously lead to cooling and warming in the lower stratosphere. Volcanic aerosols have a direct radiative effect on the lower stratosphere, producing a warming. Very Probable: (2) Global mean surface temperature warming will increase by the mid 21st century. The best available estimate is that global mean surface temperatures will increase by about 0.5 to 2.0oC [or about 0.5 to 2oC] over the period from 1990 to 2050 due to increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases alone (note that point 15 indicates it is inappropriate to convert these estimates to a per decade basis), assuming no significant actions to reduce the projected increase in the rate of emissions. The best available estimate for a climate change which is in equilibrium with two times the pre-industrial carbon dioxide (or equivalent in terms of other greenhouse gases) is a warming of 1.5 - 4.5oC, with 2.5oC being the most probable estimate. Basis: This estimate is based on projections of emissions and on a combination of results from simple model studies, general circulation models, the observed record and estimates of the response of the climate to various forcings in the geological past, as based on reconstructions carried out in paleoclimate studies. The estimated warming would be reduced if sulfur emissions are not controlled and the actual temperature change may be outside this range if natural climate variations (e.g., significant changes in the frequency of explosive volcanic eruptions) are large. (3) Global mean precipitation will increase. The distribution of this change is less certain (see below). Basis: A warming of the surface temperature over the globe will lead to an increase in global-mean precipitation because of the relationship between evaporation rate and surface temperature. The underlying physics on this is well-established and all models confirm this relationship. (4) Northern hemisphere sea-ice will be reduced (the magnitude of the change will depend on the amount of the warming and the reduced extent will initially be most evident in the transition seasons). Projected changes and their timing in the Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent are less certain. Basis: Studies of past climates provide evidence for polar amplification of warming and reduced sea ice extent. Modeling studies also suggest that this will occur, although some have suggested local sea ice expansions. (5) Arctic land areas will experience wintertime warming. Basis: Paleoclimate and model studies provide evidence for polar amplification of warming and reduction in land surface snow cover. The magnitude of the surface warming will be dependent on potential changes in the poleward heat flux, which are uncertain, and the magnitude of the global warming. Current models may significantly underestimate the magnitude of polar amplification while exaggerating tropical changes if poleward heat flux by the ocean-atmosphere system is not properly simulated by models. (6) Global sea level will rise at an increasing rate, although with some probability that the rate of rise may not be significantly greater than at present. The most reasonable estimates for the rate of sea level rise are ------- End of Forwarded Message From jgosz@nsf.gov Wed Jan 11 18:11:11 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28268; Wed, 11 Jan 95 18:11:10 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09982; 11 Jan 95 18:11 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10576; Wed, 11 Jan 95 15:10:09 PST Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA21073 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 11 Jan 1995 18:09:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199501112309.AA21073@note1.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi continued Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 18:09:33 EST From: "James R. Gosz" Status: OR Subject: Final report of Forum on Global Change Modeling -- Part 2 for a rise of 5-40 cm by 2050 as compared to a rise of 5-12 cm if rates of rise over the past century continue. Basis: The most tractable part of making the estimate for the next several decades is projecting the component due to sea water expansion, whose rate of change is closely dependent on the atmospheric warming. Reasonable estimates of the retreat of mountain glaciers are also available. The mass balances of the polar ice sheets are highly uncertain, and are likely to be important only on longer time scales. It is important to recognize that these estimates ignore long term issues relating to both the slow response of the major ice caps (Greenland and Antarctica), potentially different responses on Antarctica and Greenland, and the continuing rise in sea level as the deep ocean only slowly experiences the warming at the surface. These estimates also do not consider potential catastrophic collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet which has been proposed, but remains a subject of considerable debate. (7) Solar variability over the next 50 years will not induce a prolonged forcing that is significant in comparison with the effects of the increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Basis: Comparison of the magnitude of the forcing from known levels of solar variability (variations of roughly 0.5 W/m2 have been occurring as a result of the solar cycle) to projected changes in greenhouse gas forcing (forcing of roughly 2 to 3.5 W/m2 is projected to occur as a result of likely emission scenarios, according to the IPCC). Probable: (8) Summer Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude continental dryness will increase. Basis: Evaporation increases strongly with temperature increases. Current models illustrate some general agreement that summer mid-latitude dryness occurs because the evaporation increase is larger than the precipitation increase. However, uncertainties include: (a) increased atmospheric moisture may be transported into continental interiors, resulting in transients of increased precipitation, (b) the vegetation response to increased CO2 is not known outside of highly controlled conditions, and (c) land surface-atmosphere interactions, including the storage of wintertime moisture, are still poorly represented in models. (9) High latitude precipitation will increase, with potential feedback effects related to the influence of additional freshwater on the thermohaline circulation and of increased snowfall or rain on the mass balance of polar ice caps. Basis: With global warming, there will be an increase in the atmospheric mixing ratio of water vapor, producing larger moisture fluxes and more precipitation than at present. (10) Antarctic and North Atlantic Ocean regions will experience warming that is slower than the global average. Basis: Oceanic regions where surface waters mix downward and where deeper waters upwell to the surface will have a smaller than average surface temperature response to global warming. The suppression or enhancement of the warming will also depend on the nature of changes in the precipitation and freshwater input at the sites of downward mixing. (11) Transient explosive volcanic eruptions will result in short term relative cooling. Basis: Historical volcanism records indicate cooling of a few tenths of a degree lasting up to a few years following major eruptions. The historical frequency of explosive volcanic events large enough to produce substantial increases in stratospheric aerosols suggests that a few to several such events could occur over the next several decades. Uncertain: (12) Changes in climate variability will occur. As yet there is no clear evidence that suggests how the character of interannual variability may change due to greenhouse warming, but there is potential for multifaceted and complicated, even counter-intuitive, changes in variability. Basis: Many potential changes in variability can be identified, suggesting that some will occur. These possibilities include: (a) In all models, standing and transient eddy activity in the mid-latitudes decreases with the reduced meridional temperature gradient associated with global warming; this may lead to reduced wintertime variability for warmer climates; (b) ENSO frequency may be related to average temperature, as suggested in historical and some modeling studies; models have suggested both more and less persistence during warm climates; (c) variability associated with smaller scale convective activity may increase (e.g., thunderstorms) as a result of greater moisture content in the atmosphere; and (d) greenhouse warming and land-ocean temperature differences may increase the frequency of atmospheric "blocking" events and may influence low frequency precipitation variability. (13) Regional scale (100-2000 km) climate changes will be different from the global average changes. However, at present there is only very limited capability to estimate how various regions will respond to global climate change. Basis: There is a significant mismatch of spatial scales between present climate system models and regional climate variations. This is especially important because of the dependence of regional scale responses to the details of regional land surface characteristics, especially orography, hydrological conditions, and land surface characteristics. The best estimates of regional change are currently based on the large scale characteristics of model simulations, and differences between global and regional changes are uncertain, but are expected to be present. (14) Tropical storm intensity may change. Basis: An increase in tropical storm intensity is plausible (e.g., model studies suggest increases in intensity associated with higher sea surface temperatures), but are uncertain because of potential changes in poleward heat flux, uncertainties in tropical sea surface temperature response, and in the strength of the Hadley circulation in a greenhouse warming condition. Whether the frequency of tropical storms will increase is uncertain, in part because GCMs are currently not run at the appropriate spatial resolution to simulate hurricane formation and other factors that might lead to changes in hurricane generation. (15) Details of the climate change over the next 25 years are uncertain. Basis: Uncertainties in the factors controlling the natural variability of the climate, in the model simulations (as described above), and in the perturbations to atmospheric composition , make it extremely difficult to predict or even suggest the details of changes in the global or regional climate on the time scale of only a few decades. In any given decade, the changes in temperature and related variables could be substantially less than or more than the model predicted trend. Warming estimates in terms of degrees per decade and their use to analyze a single decade are, therefore, unwarranted. Focus on a decadal analysis of observations can be equally misleading. (16) Biosphere-climate feedbacks are expected but whether these feedbacks will amplify or moderate climate change is uncertain. Basis: Processes governing changes in the distribution and character of vegetation are not incorporated in climate models. Limited assessments suggest plausible changes in climate may occur as a result of vegetation changes that result from the greenhouse-gas-induced climate changes, including (but not limited to): (a) replacement of high latitude tundra by multi-story vegetation, resulting in added warming; (b) regional impacts in response to vegetation changes from forest to grassland, etc.; (c) impacts on CO2 concentrations of changes in carbon storage in vegetation and soils; (d) regional and possibly global impacts of extensive tropical deforestation; and (e) impacts on the N2O, NO, CH4, NMHC's and O3 cycles. These effects could amplify or moderate expected climatic changes. PART 3. Opportunities for reducing uncertainties: (1) While progress is clear as a result of ongoing research efforts and important steps can be taken over the coming decade that will bring new insights, significant reductions of the uncertainties in projecting changes and trends in the climate will require sustained efforts that are very likely to require a decade or more. Basis: Progress will require significant effort because the problems are complex, because improvements in model parameterizations will require a sustained and long-term program of research and observations, and because the records of past changes and influences require careful reconstructions to make them more complete and more useful. Although progress may be modest, there are a number of processes and feedbacks on which research must be sustained because of the large leverage to be gained from improved understanding. These processes and feedbacks include: (a) cloud-radiation-water vapor interactions, including treatment of solar and infrared radiation in clear and cloudy skies (also including resolution of uncertainties concerning anomalous solar absorption); (b) ocean circulation and overturning; (c) aerosol forcing, requiring information on aerosol character and extent; (d) decadal to centennial variability; (e) land surface processes, including vegetation changes and chemical cycling; (f) short-term variability affecting the frequency and intensity of extreme and high impact events (e.g., monsoons, hurricanes, mesoscale storm systems, etc.); (g) non-linear and threshold effects that create the potential for surprises; (h) interactions between chemistry and climate change and improved representation of atmospheric chemical interactions within climate models, thereby leading to improved understanding of the causes of trends in CH4, N2O, O3, CFC'S, and aerosols. (2) Improved spatial resolution in atmospheric and oceanic models will improve the representation of the present climate and potential global-scale changes. Basis: In the atmospheric component of climate models (as in weather forecast models), major storm systems and circulation patterns are significantly better represented in models having resolutions finer than about 2.5 degrees in latitude and longitude (as opposed to the 5-7 degree resolution used in past modeling studies), in part because of improved representation of major orographic features and in part because of improved ability to represent weather systems, the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone, the Hadley circulation, and other circulation features. In the oceanic component of climate models, ocean current patterns are significantly better represented in models having resolutions finer than about 0.5 to 1 degree (as opposed to the 3-5 degree resolution in past modeling studies), in large part because important ocean current systems (e.g., the Gulf Stream and Kuriosho), ocean variability(including El Nino events), and the thermohaline circulation and other vertical mixing processes can be better represented. Improved resolution in both atmosphere and ocean components of global climate models has also proven to reduce flux imbalance problems arising in the coupling of these components. With the increasing parallelism of supercomputers and the availability of massively parallel computers, the only impediment to the gain in model accuracy by improving model resolution is the commitment of computational resources. (Note, however, that a concomitant increase in efforts for process studies, and diagnosis and analysis of model results is required). (3) Climate changes at the surface and as a function of altitude can be better represented by inclusion of significantly more representative parameterizations of the atmospheric boundary layer and of vertical convection processes.Substantially improved observations and improved representations of water vapor in climate models will reduce a major source of uncertainty in model predictions. Basis: By inclusion of more complete representations of the atmospheric boundary layer, weather forecast models have achieved important gains in their representation and prediction of surface conditions, and of water vapor transport to the free troposphere. A 1% change in relative humidity leads to about a 1 Wm-2 change in top of the atmosphere fluxes. Observational uncertainty in relative humidity is more than 10% in some regions, which can translate to more than twice the flux change expected from a CO2 doubling. It is difficult to separate possible model error from observational error, especially in relatively dry regions. Important debate continues as to the nature of the positive water vapor feedback associated with global warming. Improved representations of precipitation and of convective transport of water vapor into the upper troposphere will significantly reduce uncertainties about the amplifying feedback due to water vapor and the extent of changes in storm tracks. Such improved representations are being developed and tested, and will be able to be implemented, provided computational time is allocated for testing and diagnostic and analysis efforts are strengthened. An increased emphasis on observations of water vapor and evaluation and testing of models is crucial to the global warming hypothesis. (4) Improving the linkages coupling the atmosphere, oceans, and land surface will reduce uncertainties in estimates of the overall climate response by improving the accuracy of the climate simulations, by eliminating the need for ad hoc adjustments to fluxes between components that are used in some models, and by allowing fuller exploration of natural climate variability over all time scales. Basis: The climate is a result of the complex interactions of the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land surface. The dynamics, thermodynamics, and hydrodynamics (and to an increasing extent the chemical and vegetation dynamics) must all be treated in order to provide a realistic simulation of the climate. The focus has initially been on the atmosphere and then increasingly on the ocean; coupling of the atmosphere and oceans has not been completely successful due to limitations in understanding ocean mixing and air-sea exchange mechanisms in addition to limitations in model resolution and the full range of processes internal to each domain. Increased attention to improving representation of the coupling is starting to lead to improved representations of temperature and other climatic variables. Corresponding improvements are needed in representations of the land surface and land-atmosphere interactions and fluxes. Because vegetation and chemical composition can affect radiative forcing and water vapor concentrations, these must also be treated in coupled simulations. The emerging results from the World Ocean Circulation Experiment, the Global Energy and Water Experiment,and other field and analysis programs are providing the opportunity for improving the performance of coupled models. (5) More explicit representation of land surface processes, including vegetation, soil characteristics, and CO2 and O3 effects on stomatal resistence, will reduce uncertainties in estimates of soil moisture, summertime continental drying, and changes of regional climate. Basis: Explicit treatment of vegetation provides representation of the seasonally varying albedo, the diurnally and seasonally varying pattern of evapotranspiration, and other factors, permitting better representation of the diurnal temperature and humidity. Explicit treatment of soil characteristics permits treatment of runoff and soil moisture, significantly improving representation of the hydrologic cycle. Parameterizations that are significantly better than those which have been used in past studies will be available for use, but still require extensive testing and evaluation before implementation and application in GCMs. (6) Sub-continental and regional scale features of global climate change can be better represented by an intensified focus on tailoring global predictions to specific regions using both finer scale models and empirical techniques. Basis: Weather forecasts are successfully tailored to specific regions using both finer scale models and empirical techniques that derive local and regional features from large-scale atmospheric conditions. These techniques, including both regional models and statistical methods, have been demonstrated in studies that predict local conditions given large-scale conditions. Application is starting to be done and awaits only commitment of resources and analytic effort. Results of this type will permit significant testing and improvement of the capabilities for estimating regional vulnerabilities of ecosystems and socio-economic systems to climate change. (7) Model comparisons against observations and with other models can accelerate the rate of model improvement. Basis: Important new data sets are being developed that document the climatic changes and fluctuations of the 20th century, including improved estimates of changes in factors (e.g., greenhouse gas concentrations, volcanic aerosols, sulfate aerosols, ozone concentrations, ozone precursors, solar variability, ENSO events, etc. ) that are likely the primary causes of these variations. Comparison of results of models making these simulations with each other and with the observational record can identify systematic errors and the strengths and weaknesses of alternative model formulations. Extension of these validation and intercomparison efforts to include atmospheric, oceanic, land surface, atmospheric chemistry, and coupled models is underway; more intensive efforts would likely accelerate progress. (8) Improved reconstruction, simulation, and analysis of preindustrial and paleoclimatic periods can help assess model projections of climate sensitivity and variability, and lead to enhanced model credibility. Basis: Successfully demonstrating the capability of models to simulate known paleoclimatic states will increase the confidence in a model's ability to predict future climatic states or scenarios. Although no past climatic periods are precisely similar to the present, reconstruction and diagnosis of climate changes and states prior to the industrial period provide the natural context to which projected anthropogenic climatic changes can be compared. The past 1000 years provides an opportunity to understand natural climate variability; the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum (18,000 years ago) to the current interglacial provides a period of relatively rapid warming; the last glacial provides periods of apparently rapid climatic shifts and changes in ocean circulation; periods during the Pliocene to the Cretaceous provide examples of warmer conditions, often with different orography and/or geography. Comparison of changes in climatic forcing with changes in climate across these periods allows estimation of processes and conditions ranging from natural variability to global climate sensitivity and its latitudinal variation. Model simulations of these periods can indicate the influence of factors that cause climatic change and can identify features that current models and understanding are unable to explain, such as changes that may not previously have been seen in the recent climatic record (e.g., relatively rapid and sharp climatic shifts). Several projects are underway to reconstruct the climates of past warm and cold periods and to compare model simulations to these reconstructions, looking at changes in the mean, in rates of change, and in initiation of climatic shifts. (9) Improving the representation of atmospheric chemistry and of vegetation and soils are needed to improve prediction of radiative feedbacks and to allow calculation of the effects of other types of global environmental change. Basis: To treat the effects of climate forcing by aerosols (both direct radiative effects and possible indirect effects on cloud radiative properties and atmospheric chemistry) and because of the indirect effects of climate change and non-greenhouse gases on the concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially ozone, it is becoming increasingly important to account for these effects in climate simulations. While this can be done to some extent parametrically, there is an increasing need to explicitly treat these processes in climate simulations. Similarly, vegetation changes can affect global biogeochemical cycles, the evapotranspiration and runoff of water, and surface reflectivity and roughness in ways that must also be accounted for in climate simulations if uncertainties are to be reduced. With the development of global chemistry and vegetation models (and related models of the effects of ocean biogeochemistry on the climate), opportunities are growing for doing so as supercomputer resources and speed increase. ------- End of Forwarded Message From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Jan 14 14:49:31 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03522; Sat, 14 Jan 95 14:49:29 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08216; 14 Jan 95 14:49 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28243; Sat, 14 Jan 95 11:49:15 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA27559; Sat, 14 Jan 1995 12:47:35 -0700 Message-Id: <9501141947.AA27559@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 12:47:35 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR Subject: FYI #4 - Walker Hearing House Science Committee Off to a Fast Start FYI No. 4, January 12, 1995 New House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) is off to a quick start with his new committee. In only the first few days of the 104th Congress, he held an organizational meeting and then adeptly chaired a hearing the next day. Walker has announced plans to mark up draft legislation on a hydrogen energy research bill, and risk assessment legislation, later this month. On January 6, the administration's top science officials testified at a three hour hearing on what Walker said was a "focus on the long term." First to testify was OSTP Director John Gibbons who said in his written testimony, "a government role is...vital in promoting technologies that are critical to economic growth, the creation of good jobs, and meeting the common needs of the nation, but cannot attract adequate private investment." He continued, "many economic studies have shown that federal money invested in science and technology brings, on average, a 50 percent rate of return to U.S. society." Gibbons lauded investments in fundamental research, and cited the link between science and technology. He highlighted the importance of basic physics research in magnetic resonance imaging, transistors, and materials. In discussing the administration's support of basic science and applied research, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown testified, "we should recognize at the outset that the Contract with America would jeopardize that technology policy." Brown cited the proposed elimination of the Advanced Technology Program and a NOAA budget freeze. NSF Director Neal Lane's written testimony discussed an area of considerable debate, saying, "NSF support of research focuses almost exclusively on answers to fundamental questions that defy our ability to predict the outcomes. Still, it is important to recognize that taxpayer-funded fundamental research can and should have a conscious relationship to the nation's priorities and societal needs. This does not mean a narrowly directed agenda of targeted research, but rather, a program of fundamental science and engineering that clearly is in and for the national interest, in its most comprehensive interpretation." Responding to public and congressional sentiment for the downsizing of the federal government, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin testified, "We've started a revolution at NASA.... We're downsizing. We cut our five-year budget projection by 30%. We're replacing big, expensive projects with smaller, more efficient ones. We're in the midst of a zero base review that puts everything on the table. No program is sacred. We're looking at everything NASA does." DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary was unable to testify. Her Statement for the Record said, "As one of the nation's major supporters of federal research and development, the Department of Energy has a wide range of extremely exciting R&D programs under way that hold the potential to contribute in important ways to a better future." Citing the department's statutory missions, she referred to DOE's involvement in "fundamental science in areas that underlie these missions areas, including high-energy and nuclear physics." Questions from committee Members covered many topics. Rep. George Brown (D-CA) criticized the administration for using overly optimistic, unrealistic funding scenarios. Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN) had concerns about the NASA budget, saying, "I don't know how we do it, Mr. Goldin." In response to a question, NSF Director Lane admitted that the agency was facing the prospect of lower future budgets. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) asked about undergraduate science education programs being shortchanged. A new committee Member, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) asked Director Gibbons about the ability of the federal government to manage large programs, citing the SSC. Gibbons responded by saying that efforts to internationalize the collider were "too little, too late." Gibbons said high energy physics research continues, noting the Fermilab upgrade, B Factory, and that "we are attempting to become a part of the large international consortium" on the Large Hadron Collider. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), a physicist, criticized U.S. science policy for "focusing on the immediate term." He said the nation's commitment to basic research was "faltering," saying "I am particularly disturbed at what has happened in the past few years. I don't engage in Senate bashing, but I will use an example of the Senate Appropriations Committee, with their strong emphasis on strategic research.... I think there's a real danger of cutting into important funding for basic research." He called for a "coherent congressional science policy." In responding to Ehlers, Gibbons cited the strong case made for basic research in the OSTP report, "Science in the National Interest." Gibbons stated that the administration has strongly supported basic research during this constrained budget climate, and "it has held a priority, even to the point of taking money away from other activity." Lane discussed NSF support of fundamental research, such as the LIGO and Gemini telescope projects. In his concluding remarks, Chairman Walker offered insight into a philosophy that is likely to reverberate throughout the science committee during his chairmanship. He stated, "It seems to me that what we have to do if we're going to begin to restructure government in ways that make sense for twenty years out, we have to get past the idea of thinking of all these things as government programs. We have to begin to think about a society restructured where science is integral part of addressing that whole panoply of economic interests, but also it goes to the very nature of our culture as well...." From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Jan 14 14:51:00 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03527; Sat, 14 Jan 95 14:50:59 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08352; 14 Jan 95 14:50 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28249; Sat, 14 Jan 95 11:50:28 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA27573; Sat, 14 Jan 1995 12:48:48 -0700 Message-Id: <9501141948.AA27573@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 12:48:47 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR Subject: FYI #6 - Walker on Science $ Status: OR House Science Committee Chairman Walker Optimistic on Science Spending FYI No. 6, January 13, 1995 Although a constant refrain on Capitol Hill is the need to reduce federal spending, remarks by new House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) on a public radio station show (88.5 FM - WAMU, Washington) on Wednesday provide cautiously optimistic signs for future science spending. Walker's remarks are particularly significant since he is also the Vice Chairman of the House Budget Committee, which will have great influence in setting the direction of congressional spending this year. Walker was joined by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Ranking Minority Member on the Senate VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, and Anne Petersen, Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation. Excerpts from this 45-minute discussion follow: WALKER ON THE OUTLOOK FOR SCIENCE SPENDING: "I think that it is going to be largely driven by what the administration decides to do in their budget. I am hopeful that we will at least maintain an even level for science, and maybe even increase it somewhat. Because it is an area where we are investing in the future. It seems to me that when you fund basic research you're financing the underpinnings, the foundation if you will, for the economy of the future. And that we make a very, very unwise decision if we cut back on our ability to know what the future can produce by cutting back on science at the present time." He later added, "If the administration holds the line pretty well on research, my guess is that Congress is going to follow that. I hear no great mood on Capitol Hill to slash into the science budget. There's no doubt that we are going to be doing a lot of cutting, and a lot of those are going to be in discretionary programs, but I think there is an understanding amongst Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill that when using our discretion about discretionary programs, the last thing we want to do is take away from those efforts that will help define our ability to compete economically and globally in the future." WALKER ON STRATEGIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH FUNDING: "There's a totality of scientific research that has to be looked at, as a part of the whole economy, not just the federal government. I think the federal government role should be limited to research that is largely basic so that we are assured that that research gets done. Applied research is the kind of thing where you see a product at the end, and where business and industry are willing to invest in a lot of that kind of research.... You want the federal government funding basic research and you want the other research to be done by those people who will ultimately profit from it." Walker later continued, "There may be research that should be done that has no constituency," citing research on bread mold that ultimately produced penicillin. "No one knew that at the time that the research began. I think we ought to keep the door very much open to allow research to be driven by ideas, and not by constituencies." PETERSEN ON NSF'S FUNDING APPROACH: "We do not see a conflict here.... Fundamental research can and should have a conscious relationship to the nation's priorities and societal needs." WALKER ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS SETTING OF SCIENTIFIC GOALS: "In my view, the way you should select projects is by peer review, where the scientific community decides the research is valuable to be done. Whether or not it fits with a political goal, it should be done simply because it is good science." MIKULSKI ON SCIENCE FUNDING CUTS: "Let me tell you, there is a convergence between the budget hawks and the budget doves to go after science. They defeated the super collider, which was the purest...physics driven research. They are now cruising for cuts in the space program, whether it is the space station, and I understand a very strong segment, growing segment, in [the GOP] wants to eliminate the Mission to Plant Earth in the space program. So politics is going to drive science, and it's going to drive it through the cutting process, unless science can articulate a clear vision about what it wants to accomplish. And while Congress was kicking the dickens out of the super collider, they were enthusiastically endorsing the human genome project.... Why did they back the human genome project -- because they see it leading to something." PETERSEN ON SCIENTISTS COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC: "I very much agree with the perspective that we as scientists need to do a better job of communicating what we're doing, and why it is important to the lives of our citizens and the nation overall. I think we haven't done as good a job of that as we need to. I think if we are able to accomplish that, there will be broader understanding of the results of fundamental research and how it can have practical impact." From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jan 15 17:33:46 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05496; Sun, 15 Jan 95 17:33:43 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab08157; 15 Jan 95 17:33 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02073; Sun, 15 Jan 95 14:33:34 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01921; Sun, 15 Jan 1995 15:31:53 -0700 Message-Id: <9501152231.AA01921@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sun, 15 Jan 95 15:31:52 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: supplements for information science education Status: OR Dear PIs A number of the Executive Committee plus Mike Allen and John Porter from NSF attended a workshop hosted by the Smithsonian for a potential permanent exhibit in the Natural History Museum. The exhibit, entitled "Forces of Change" will feature a number of themes over the years that deal with changing environments, changing resources, changing roles for human society, etc. They are in the early stages for these themes and the workshop was principally one of brainstorming subject matter and ideas for displays. They are very excited about the LTER program being a permanent part of the exhibit. Thus, while themes will change every two years or so, interactions with LTER sites, LTER information and expertise will continue as appropriate for the particular theme presented. We will continue to interact with the Smithsonian in developing the displays and on how the LTER information and expertise will be featured. I expect we will help develop a planning grant proposal to NSF and initial inquiries have been made with the Informal Science Education program. That effort also developed additional opportunities for LTER awards! The Informal Science Education Program is willing to award supplements to current LTER awards to PREPARE AND DISPLAY exhibits in their own local/regional areas. Efforts such as these would complement what would be developed at the national (Smithsonian) scale and may even serve as the display at the Smithsonian. It allows us to take advantage of the expertise at all of the sites and local museums or other forms of education. The following is a draft supplement request and PIs have been asked to provide suggestions or additional details and examples for improvement. After compiling responses (please send to me), I will work with the program officers in the Informal Science Education Program and send the official supplement request. THE FOLLOWING IS NOT THE OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENT REQUEST. THE REVISED AND ACCEPTED (BY NSF) REQUEST PLUS DETAILS ON PAGE LIMITS, ETC. WILL BE EMAILED TO YOU. RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUPPLEMENT REQUESTS TO NSF: INFORMAL SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM Purpose of Supplement: ISE will consider requests to provide up to $50,000 or 20% of the total award, whichever is larger, to supple- ment a research award to further general science literacy goals and to assist in the broader dissemination of research results. Rationale: Some disciplines are developing principles for the conduct of research that include recommendations regarding the broader dissemination of research results. In the "Principles for the Conduct of Research in the Arctic", for example, the fourth recommendation says "research results should be explained in non-technical terms and, where feasible, should be communicated by means of study materials that can be used by local teachers or displays that can be shown in local community centers or museums." (We especially need more details here!) Method: A request for the supplement should be made to an ISE program officer. The following information should be included in the request. 1. Statement of the Education Goals. i.e., What are the "take-home" messages? 2. Description of the informal education activity from the point of view of the audience. What thought has gone into matching the method with the needs/interests of the audience? Why this approach? 3. Identification of the target audience. What does the target audience know about the subject? What does the lPI know about their learning levels and styles? 4. Estimation of the size of the target audience. 5. Identification of who will produce it, develop it, etc. 6. Description of the evaluation process and identification of the evaluator. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jan 15 21:16:07 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05734; Sun, 15 Jan 95 21:16:05 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00376; 15 Jan 95 21:16 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02578; Sun, 15 Jan 95 18:16:22 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02722; Sun, 15 Jan 1995 19:14:42 -0700 Message-Id: <9501160214.AA02722@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sun, 15 Jan 95 19:14:41 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Cross-site competition Status: OR We learned from NSF that they intend to hold another cross-site competition this year. The announcement should be out by the end of the month. One difference for this year is that other agencies may be cofunding proposals that are appropriate to those agencies. I visited with agency representatives and have lists of priority research sites or programs that they would like linked to the LTER program. The suggestion is that proposals for cross-site research between those sites and LTER sites could receive a portion of the funding or supplemental funding from those agencies. We will be sending those lists soon, either by email or by fax. We also learned that NSF does not yet have its FY94 budget and cannot say anything about an augmentation competition. jim gosz From jgosz@turututu.unm.edu Mon Jan 16 14:17:58 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08115; Mon, 16 Jan 95 14:17:57 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab17724; 16 Jan 95 14:17 EST Received: from turututu.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05435; Mon, 16 Jan 95 11:02:30 PST Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08371; Mon, 16 Jan 1995 12:00:06 -0700 Message-Id: <9501161900.AA08371@turututu.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 12:00:05 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NBS news release Cc: lter@turututu.unm.edu Status: OR Thought you might be interested in this news release from DOI on Jan. 6. INTERIOR AGENCY GETS NEW NAME; WILL BE KNOWN AS NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SERVICE; BABBITT NARROWS BOUNDARIES FOR ITS ACTIVITIES Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt today renamed the Department's newest bureau as the National Biological Service (NBS). When established in 1993, the bureau had been named the National Biological Survey. In addition, Babbitt also issued a Secretarial Order placing significant restrictions on the agency's activities, particularly those on private property. The Service's use of volunteers will have strict parameters. The Order also reiterated a requirement for independent scientific peer review of NBS study projects. "What's in a Name?" "The fact is the old name was misleading," said Babbitt. "For many people, it implied there was some kind of count going on. A lot of people thought the survey was something that would move across this country, from east to west, counting everything in between. They thought it was something that would start and finish. But that's not even close to reality." "We've all heard the question `what's in a name?` Well, I can tell you the answer is a lot of confusion. Particularly if it's a misleading name," said National Biological Service Director H. Ronald Pulliam. "The National Biological Service devotes only a small component of its budget and functions to actual survey activities," said Pulliam. "Its broad scientific responsibility was not clear in its original name, but this change should clarify public understanding of its mission. And it better reflects the partnership orientation of NBS." "The NBS goal is to provide a service -- access to the most current and complete biological science information available for all those who make or care about decisions that affect America's natural resources," Pulliam said. "After a year of confusion over the name, it's time to admit that we picked a lousy one," said Babbitt. "When Congress recently changed the names of its committees, I realized their approach made sense. Many of those names nad been established decades ago, but a shift in jurisdiction and focus made them somewhat misleading." From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Jan 17 20:15:33 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00311; Tue, 17 Jan 95 20:15:28 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23554; 17 Jan 95 20:15 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14260; Tue, 17 Jan 95 16:54:42 PST Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 16:54:42 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Soil Ecology Society National Conference (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, dirt@lternet.washington.edu, decomp@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Please excuse the duplication if you've already received this notice. >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Soil Ecology Society National Conference ****OVERVIEW**** A conference on the influence of belowground biodiversity on aboveground community structure will be held at Colorado State University under the auspices of the Soil Ecology Society March 12-15, 1995. The major goals of the conference are to present and discuss the importance of the biodiversity of soils to soil processes that are critical to aboveground ecosystem structure, and to develop a strategy to convey this information to the ecological community as a whole. The conference will be international in scope drawing from the expertise of soil biologists and ecologists. The conference will provide a forum for synthesis and identifying research priorities. The theme of the conference will be to identify traditional paradigms in ecology and draw attention to the relevant soil processes that may be operating. Questions relevant to the conference include: * To what extent are aboveground community structure and diversity mediated by processes that operate belowground? * How are belowground biodiversity and community structure affected by natural and anthropogenic changes that occur aboveground? * How can studies of belowground systems augment or change our understanding of ecosystems structure and function in general? ****CONFERENCE SCHEDULE**** The conference opens March 12, 1995 with a reception and overview keynote address on the general importance of belowground and aboveground processes. The three days that follow will include invited talks, contributed posters, and work group discussions. Mornings will be devoted to formal presentations and afternoons and evenings to poster sessions. Sunday March 12 (Travel to Fort Collins) Afternoon: Registration Evening: Reception Opening remarks: J. Moore, University of Northern Colorado, USA Opening address: D. Tilman, University of Minnesota, USA Monday March 13 Morning: Session 1: "Feedbacks" H. Setala, University of Jyvskyala, Finland R. Parmelee, Ohio State University, USA D. R. Strong, University of California, USA Afternoon: Contributed posters Work groups, TBA Tuesday March 14 Morning: Session 2: "Consequences" S. Visser, University of Calgary, Canada J. Trofymow, Forest Service, Canada V. Brown, Imperial College at Silwood Park, UK Afternoon: Contributed posters Work groups, TBA Evening: Banquet Wednesday March 15 Session 3: "Management" V. Gupta, CSIRO, Australia R. Niles, Colorado State University, USA L. Brussaard, Wageningen Agricultural University, Netherlands Afternoon: Contributed posters Work group reports Closing remarks: J. Moore, University of Northern Colorado,USA ****POSTER ABSTRACTS**** Submission deadline for including an abstract in the program: February 20, 1995 Send abstracts for posters to: Gordon A. Hazzard Office of Conference Services Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 303/491-6222 (voice) 303/491-0667 (fax) Abstracts should be typed in a 12-point font on plain white paper, in an area 7 cm high by 15 cm wide. At the top of the abstract, in capital letters, put the authors' names (last names first), the title of the poster, and the institutions of the authors. Leave one blank line before typing the body of the text. ****MEETING ORGANIZERS**** John C. Moore (SES President), Robert K. Niles (Local Chair), Diana W. Freckman, and Carol Jacobs-Carre ****GENERAL INFORMATION**** Registration: The early registration fee of $110.00 ($55.00 for students) for the 4-day conference includes poster sessions, abstracts, beverage breaks, and the opening reception. This fee will be honored for all registrations postmarked and paid by March 3, 1995. For all registrations postmarked or paid after March 3, 1995, the regular registration fee of $135.00 ($80.00 for students) will apply. Sorry, no single day registrations are available. The two lunches and banquet are sold as separate tickets. The ticket price of the banquet includes the meal price and an administrative fee. The lunches will be served at the meeting site on campus and the banquet will be held at a nearby hotel (University Park Holiday Inn). Confirmation will be made by the Colorado State University Office of Conference Services for all applications received by March 1. Cancellation notice must be received by 5:00 PM MST, March 8, to receive a refund, less a $15.00 processing fee. Refunds will not be possible after this time. Substitutes will be accepted. There will be a $17.00 charge for any returned check. Location: The conference will be conducted at the Colorado State University Lory Student Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. A campus map will be sent to you with your registration confirmation and receipt. A guest parking permit will also be provided to you at no additional charge. Transportation: If traveling by car, I-25 provides easy access to Fort Collins, Colorado. Flights should be scheduled to the (as yet unopened, thus a possible source of inconvenience) Denver International Airport. Rental cars and shuttle service are available at the airport. More information will be included with your registration confirmation. Lodging: Several area motels make rooms available at special rates for government employees and participants at CSU conferences. You will need to make direct contact with the motel of your choice. Suggested motels are: University Park Holiday Inn (303/482-2626), Days Inn (303/221-5490), Holiday Inn I-25 (303/484-4660), Fort Collins Marriott (303/226-5200), Mulberry Inn Econo Lodge (303/493-900), Ramada Inn (303/493-7800), and Super 8 Motel (303/493-7701). Be sure to identify yourself as a government employee or as a participant of this CSU sponsored conference. ****ADDITIONAL INFORMATION**** For information call: Office of Conference Services 303/491-6222 (voice) or 303/491-0667 (fax). ****REGISTRATION FORM**** To register, mail the following information to Soil Ecology Society National Conference, Office of Conference Services, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Name ________________________________________________ Organization ________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________ City ________________________________________________ State ________________________________________________ Zip ________________________________________________ Poster title ________________________________________________ Phone ________________________________________________ Early registration fee: $110.00 ($55.00 students), postmarked & paid by March 3, 1995. Regular registration fee: $135.00 ($80.00 students), postmarked & paid after March 3, 1995. Lunch March 13: $5.00 Lunch March 14: $5.00 Banquet March 14: $30.00 Total enclosed ________________________________________________ Please indicate if you desire vegetarian meals. Please describe any special needs you have under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ****METHOD OF PAYMENT**** Check MasterCard Visa Card # ________________________________________________ Expiration date ________________________________________________ Credit card customers can FAX registration information to 303/491- 0667. Please make all checks payable to Colorado State University. (Payment must be postmarked by March 3, 1995 to qualify for early registration fee.) Colorado State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution and complies with all federal and Colorado state laws, regulations and executive orders regarding affirmative action requirements in all programs. The Office of Equal Opportunity is located in Room 314, Student Services Building. In order to assist Colorado State University in meeting its affirmative action responsibilities, ethnic minorities, women, and other protected class members are encouraged to apply and to identify themselves. _________________________________________________________________________ From jgosz@turututu.unm.edu Wed Jan 18 09:47:00 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01771; Wed, 18 Jan 95 09:46:57 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23978; 18 Jan 95 9:46 EST Received: from turututu.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16523; Wed, 18 Jan 95 06:43:13 PST Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA10407; Wed, 18 Jan 1995 07:41:28 -0700 Message-Id: <9501181441.AA10407@turututu.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 07:41:27 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: funding opportunity Status: OR > From jgosz@nsf.gov Wed Jan 18 07:39:44 1995 > Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu > (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16515; Wed, 18 Jan 95 06:41:22 PST > Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA46304 > (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 18 Jan 1995 09:40:29 -0500 > Message-Id: <199501181440.AA46304@note1.nsf.gov> > To: jgosz@lternet.edu > Subject: MMIA > Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 09:40:28 EST > From: "James R. Gosz" > > > > - ------ > The following is an announcement of special funding opportunity > related to the National Science Foundation (NSF) Global Change > Research Program. This announcement has been approved by NSF and will > be published as NSF 95-9. > > NSF will be maintaining an electronic mailing list of researchers > interested in integrated assessments. The list wil be used to > communicate any further information or notices concerning this special > funding opportunity, 'Methods and Models for Integrated Assessment.' > Any additions, deletions or changes to this list should be sent to > Internet This address can also be used to > request a printed copy of the announcement once it is published. > These will be available for mailing by the beginning of February, > 1995. Any questions regarding the announcemennt may be directed to > the NSF program officers listed at the end of this announcement. > > > > > > > METHODS AND MODELS > FOR INTEGRATED > ASSESSMENT > > RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY RELATED TO THE > NSF GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM > > ANNOUNCEMENT OF SPECIAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY > > > DEADLINES: > Funding Opportunity I > "Research to Integrate Multiple Components" > - April 15, 1995 > > > Funding Opportunity II > "Enhancement of Scientific Components" > - deadlines vary by discipline. > > > > > Methods and Models for Integrated Assessment (MMIA) > > Announcement of a Research Funding Opportunity > > > Methods and Models for Integrated Assessment (MMIA) is a new > funding opportunity for global change research at the National Science > Foundation (NSF). The goal of MMIA is to support methodological > research that will advance the design and conduct of integrated > assessments. Integrated assessment is a new approach for examining > the complex interactions among Earth's physical, biological, and human > systems. Assessing the combined influence of multiple systems is > central to understanding important issues such as global environmental > change, large-scale technological change, and international > socio-political evolution. The integrated assessment approach > involves the use of quantitative models and other methods to better > understand individual component systems and their interactions, with > particular emphasis on how changes in one or more component systems > will impact other systems. > > Federal agencies participating in the U.S. Global Change Research > Program (US/GCRP) have identified integrated assessment as an > important approach for providing information to policy and decision > makers. In addition to providing information about the dynamics of > change, integrated assessments will assist policy makers by providing > a framework for identifying and evaluating likely consequences of > different environmental policies. > > In concert with other US/GCRP agencies, NSF has established MMIA > to sponsor high-quality, fundamental and methodological research in > two categories: (1) research that advances the development of > methodologies and models that will integrate multiple component > systems; and (2) research that develops and enhances the scientific > components of the integrated approach. > > MMIA will consist of two funding opportunities. The first > opportunity is a special interdisciplinary competition that advances > integrative methodologies linking component systems. Information on > this special competition is given in the section titled `Funding > Opportunity I.' The following section, `Funding Opportunity II', > describes the availability of funding for research that enhances > understanding of scientific components of the integrative approach. > Research in this category will be supported through disciplinary and > interdisciplinary awards made by individual NSF programs. For both > research funding opportunities, NSF encourages participation and > collaboration of researchers from all appropriate scientific and > engineering disciplines, including the mathematical sciences. NSF > expects to make up to 30 MMIA awards in FY 1995, with total support > for MMIA at approximately $3.4 million. > > > Funding Opportunity I: Research to Integrate Multiple Components > > Proposals addressing the overall analytical approach should > describe research intended to improve methods for integrated > assessment. Proposed research should emphasize integrated assessment > as an analytical approach. Because of the nature of this research, > NSF expects most awards in this category to be interdisciplinary in > scope and to focus on the linkages among multiple human and natural > systems with reference to high priority policy issues (such as > national economic welfare, international technological change or > regional ecological impacts). Examples of research in this category > include rigorous modeling methods and algorithms that link > atmospheric, ecological, socio-economic systems; meta-analysis of > models and data; treatment of uncertainty and risk in integrated > systems; and the development of exploratory and confirmatory > techniques for prediction in large complex models and statistically > based inferences. > > Proposals addressing integrated assessment are expected to > indicate the scientific merit of the proposed research, and the policy > relevance of the anticipated results. They may also propose specific > activities, such as workshops and briefings, to foster interactions and > communications between the policy and research communities. Although > participation by researchers in specific disciplines is not required, > the Foundation encourages investigators to demonstrate substantial > contributions from the mathematical, statistical, natural and social > sciences in their research plans. > > A special competition for the proposals addressing this > integrative approach will be conducted in the Spring of 1995. > Evaluation of proposals in this special competition will include > reviews by external experts and by a multidisciplinary panel. > Evaluation of proposals will be based on the four standard NSF > evaluation criteria: (1) research performance competence; (2) > intrinsic merit of the research; (3) utility or relevance of the > research; and (4) effect of the research on the infrastructure of > science and engineering. Proposals submitted for the overall approach > category must be postmarked no later than April 15. > > > Funding Opportunity II: Enhancement of Scientific Components > > > MMIA also will support more focused research in disciplinary > methods and components that contribute to the overall objectives of > the program. This research will emphasize improved understanding of > the topical and methodological components of integrated assessment. > The research is expected to reduce uncertainty about critical > processes, fill knowledge gaps, and improve the validity and > reliability of the component science. Examples of research in this > category include further analysis of environmental change variables; > modeling of physical and human processes related to global change; > modeling ecosystem function and value; modeling adaptive behavioral > and social responses to environmental change; computational and > modeling methods to address uncertainty, vulnerabilities, surprise > scenario forecasts, and simulation; and modeling international growth, > competitiveness, and security in the context of resource > sustainability. > > MMIA will also support research on higher-dimensional statistical > inference techniques. Examples include extensions of inferential > technologies to the dimensions needed to construct bridges between > Earth-system-data and policy relevant questions regarding global > change and evaluation of the efficacy of methods for integrated > assessment through analyses of their use in actual assessments. > > Proposals addressing the component science category should be > submitted to the most relevant program in the NSF research > directorates. They must include a statement demonstrating how the > proposed research responds to the science needs of integrated > assessments for global change research. Evaluation of proposals will > follow the procedures of the relevant programs. Evaluation of > proposals will be based on the four standard NSF evaluation criteria: > (1) research performance competence; (2) intrinsic merit of the > research; (3) utility or relevance of the research; and (4) effect of > the research on the infrastructure of science and engineering. > > Investigators should consult the NSF Guide to Programs (NSF > 94-91) to determine the most relevant program. They are encouraged to > contact that program before submission to verify evaluation procedures > and submission deadlines. > > > Proposal Submission Information > > All institutions eligible to receive support from the NSF > research directorates may submit proposals in response to this > announcement. The Foundation also has express statutory authority to > support research performed by other Federal agencies and Federally > Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). The Foundation > ordinarily does not encourage research proposals from other Federal > agencies or FFRDCs; however, for this particular announcement the > Foundation will consider proposals for research and logistic support > activities of other Federal agencies or FFRDCs directed to the goals > of special national and international research programs for which the > Foundation bears special responsibility. Scientists from other > federal agencies or FFRDCs are encouraged to participate by developing > collaborations with university scientists. Any proposals under this > category should not include costs related to Civil Service Salaries > for federal scientists. > > Preparation and submission of proposals must follow the > guidelines given in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (NSF 94-2). Note > especially that there is a limit of 15 pages for the Project > Description section, including text as well as visual materials. In > general, letters of endorsement and other appendices are disallowed. > Proposals will be reviewed in accordance with established Foundation > procedures and the four general criteria described in GPG. GPG also > includes all required NSF forms. To obtain a copy contact: > > NSF Forms and Publication Unit > 4201 Wilson Boulevard > Arlington, VA 22230 > Tel: (703) 306-1130 > FAX: (703) 644-4278 > Internet: pubs@nsf.gov > > MMIA projects that will produce data and information that can be > used by other global change researchers must include a special > information and supplementary documentation section (Proposal Section > I) titled "Data and Information Availability." Section I is described > in detail on page 10 of the GPG and is not counted in the 15-page > Project Description limitation. This discussion should describe the > data and information products, the management plans for their > validation, quality control and archiving, and the costs for these > activities. > > If a proposal is being submitted in response to the special > competition addressing the overall analytical approach, the delivery > address must clearly identify the number of this NSF announcement. If > the proposal is being submitted in response to the scientific > component funding opportunity, make sure to indicate the division and > program to which the proposal is being directed, including appropriate > program deadlines. > > Proposals should be mailed to: > Announcement No. (if responding to overall analytic approach) > Relevant program (if responding to scientific component > funding opportunity) > Proposal Processing Unit, Rm. 60 > National Science Foundation > 4201 Wilson Blvd. > Arlington, VA 22230 > > For more information on this program, please contact; > > Dr. Robin Cantor > Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences > PH: (703) 306-1757 > FAX: (703) 306-0485 > Internet: rcantor@nsf.gov > > Dr. Al Thaler > Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences > PH: (703) 306-1880 > FAX: (703) 306-0555 > Internet: athaler@nsf.gov > - --or-- > Dr. Sallie Keller-McNulty > Program Director for Statistics & Probability > Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences > PH: (703) 306-1870 > FAX: (703) 306-0555 > Internet: smcnulty@nsf.gov > > Ms. Susi Baranano > Directorate for Geosciences > PH: (703) 306-1527 > FAX: (703) 306-0377 > Internet: sbaranan@nsf.gov > > Dr. J. Thomas Callahan > Directorate for Biological Sciences > PH: (703) 306-1479 > FAX: (703) 306-0367 > Internet: jcallaha@nsf.gov > > Dr. Dennis Peacock > Office of Polar Programs > PH: (703) 306-1033 > FAX: (703) 306-0139 > Internet: dpeacock@nsf.gov > > > > Related Funding Opportunities > > Other Federal agencies have been working with NSF to advance > research on integrated assessments related to global change. > Investigators may wish to obtain information about the following > related funding opportunities: > > Department of Energy > > The Environmental Sciences Division of the Office of Energy > Research in the U.S. Department of Energy expects to solicit > applications on Global Change Assessment Research, subject to > availability of funds. The notice of this solicitation is expected to > appear in the Federal Register late in 1994; applications will be due > early in 1995. For further information, contact John Houghton; > Environmental Sciences Division, Office of Energy Research; ER-74; > U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C., 20585; Phone: (301) > 903-8288; Internet: john.houghton@mailgw.er.doe.gov. > > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration > > Within the context of its Economics and Human Dimensions of > Climate Fluctuations Program, the Office of Global Programs of the > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will support research > on integrated assessment relevant to the impacts and effects of > episodic climate variations (such as those related to the El > Ni$o-Southern Oscillation phenomenon) and the identification of > policies for mitigation and adaptation. Notice of this program is > included in the Program Announcement for NOAA's Climate and Global > Change Program, which is published each spring in the Federal > Register. The deadline for proposals to be considered in Fiscal Year > 1996 is expected to be in late summer 1995. For further information, > contact Claudia Nierenberg; Office of Global Programs; National > Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 1225; > Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone: 301/427-2089, Ext. 46; Internet: > nierenberg@ogp.noaa.gov. > > > > Grant General Conditions > NSF provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. > The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research > and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, > therefore, does not assume responsibility for the research findings of > the interpretation. > The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists > and engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons > with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and related > programs described here. > In accordance with federal statutes, regulations and NSF > policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national > origin or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied > the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or > activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science > Foundation. > Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with > Disabilities (FASED) provides funding for special assistance or > equipment to enable persons with disabilities (Investigators and other > staff, including student research assistants) to work on an NSF > project. See the program announcement or contact the program > coordinator at (703) 306-1636. > Programs described in this publication are included in the > Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under the following categories: > 47.050, 47.049, 47.074 and 47.075. > Privacy Act and Public Burden > Information requested on NSF application materials is solicited > under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as > amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of > qualified proposals and may be used and disclosed to qualified > reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process and to > other government agencies. See Systems of Records NSF-50, Principal > Investigator/ Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF 51, > "Reviewer/ Proposals File and Associated Records," 56 Federal Register > 54907 (Oct. 23, 1991). Submission of the information is voluntary. > Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce > the possibility of your receiving an award. > The public reporting burden for this collection of information is > estimated to average 120 hours per response, including time for > reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate > or any other aspect of this collection of information, including > suggestions for reducing this burden, to: > > Herman G. Fleming > Reports Clearance Officer > Division of CPO, NSF > Arlington, VA 22230; > and to the > > Office of Management and Budget > Paperwork Reduction Project (3145-0058) > Wash., D.C. 20503. > > The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for > the Deaf) capability which enables individuals with hearing impairment > to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment, or > general information. This number is (703) 306-0090. > > > OMB 3145-0058 > PT 34 > KW 0404000, 0411009, 1000000, 1013000, 1010000, 1010017, 0740405, > 0408000, 0411000, 0412000, 1004117, 0411004, 0408012, 0411005, 0411015 > > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Jan 19 23:16:12 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09220; Thu, 19 Jan 95 23:16:10 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25965; 19 Jan 95 23:16 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28329; Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:15:13 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA11446; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:13:28 -0700 Message-Id: <9501200413.AA11446@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 21:13:28 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR House Science Subcommittees: Basic Research, Energy & Environment FYI No. 8, January 19, 1995 The House Science Committee is the authorizing committee for the federal government's science and technology policies and programs. (An authorizing committee approves federal programs, but does not fund them.) Agencies under its jurisdiction in the 104th Congress include OSTP, OTA, NSF, NASA, NIST, and the Department of Energy's non-military R&D programs. The committee has been reduced from five subcommittees to four: Basic Research, Energy and Environment, Space and Aeronautics, and Technology. This FYI provides the rosters and jurisdiction of the subcommittees on Basic Research, and Energy and Environment. FYI #9 will provide the same information for the Space and Aeronautics, and Technology subcommittees. The quotes regarding subcommittee jurisdiction are taken from the science committee's "Committee Rules for the 104th Congress," approved January 5th of this year. (Note: Full Committee chairman Robert Walker (PA) and Ranking Democratic Member George Brown (CA) are ex-officio members of each subcommittee.) SUBCOMMITTEE ON BASIC RESEARCH: Republicans: Democrats: Steven Schiff (NM), Chair Pete Geren (TX), ranking Sherwood Boehlert (NY) Alcee Hastings (FL) Joe Barton (TX) Lynn Rivers (MI) Bill Baker (CA) Lloyd Doggett (TX) Vernon Ehlers (MI) Bill Luther (MN) Gil Gutknecht (MN) John Olver (MA) Connie Morella (MD) Zoe Lofgren (CA) Curt Weldon (PA) Mike Doyle (KY) Roscoe Bartlett (MD) Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) Zack Wamp (TN) vacancy Dave Weldon (FL) vacancy Lindsey Graham (SC) Van Hilleary (TN) Sue Myrick (NC) Jurisdiction: "Legislative jurisdiction and general and special oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to science policy including: Office of Science and Technology Policy; all scientific research, and scientific and engineering resources (including human resources), math, science and engineering education; intergovernmental mechanisms for research, development, and demonstration and cross-cutting programs; international scientific cooperation; National Science Foundation; university research policy, including infrastructure, overhead and partnerships; science scholarships; government-owned, contractor-operated non-military laboratories; computer, communications, and information science; earthquake and fire research programs; research and development relating to health, biomedical, and nutritional programs; to the extent appropriate, agricultural, geological, biological and life sciences research; and the Office of Technology Assessment." SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Republicans: Democrats: Dana Rohrabacher (CA), Chair Jimmy Hayes (LA), ranking Harris Fawell (IL) David Minge (MN) Curt Weldon (PA) John Olver (MA) Roscoe Bartlett (MD) Mike Ward (KY) Zack Wamp (TN) Michael Doyle (PA) Lindsey Graham (SC) Tim Roemer (IN) Matt Salmon (AZ) Bud Cramer (AL) Thomas Davis (VA) James Barcia (MI) Steve Largent (OK) Paul McHale (PA) Barbara Cubin (WY) Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX) Mark Foley (FL) Lynn Rivers (MI) Steven Schiff (NM) Karen McCarthy (MO) Bill Baker (CA) Vernon Ehlers (MI) Steve Stockman (TX) Jurisdiction: "Legislative jurisdiction and general and special oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to energy and environmental research, development, and demonstration including: Department of Energy research, development, and demonstration programs; federally owned and operated nonmilitary energy laboratories; energy supply research and development activities; nuclear and other advanced energy technologies; general science and research activities; uranium supply, enrichment, and waste management activities as appropriate; fossil energy research and development; clean coal technology; energy conservation research and development; science and risk assessment activities of the Federal Government; Environmental Protection Agency research and development programs; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including all activities related to weather, weather services, climate, and the atmosphere, and marine, fisheries, and oceanic research." From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Jan 19 23:16:12 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09219; Thu, 19 Jan 95 23:16:10 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25964; 19 Jan 95 23:16 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28333; Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:16:05 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA11460; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:14:20 -0700 Message-Id: <9501200414.AA11460@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 21:14:20 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR House Science Subcommittees: Space & Aeronautics, Technology FYI No. 9, January 19, 1995 The House Science Committee is the authorizing committee for the federal government's science and technology policies and programs. (An authorizing committee approves federal programs, but does not fund them.) Agencies under its jurisdiction in the 104th Congress include OSTP, OTA, NSF, NASA, NIST, and DOE's non-military R&D programs. The previous FYI provided rosters and jurisdiction for the Basic Research, and Energy and Environment subcommittees. This FYI provides the same information for the Space and Aeronautics, and Technology subcommittees. The quotes regarding subcommittee jurisdiction are taken from the science committee's "Committee Rules for the 104th Congress," approved January 5th of this year. (Note: Full Committee chairman Robert Walker (PA) and Ranking Democratic Member George Brown (CA) are ex-officio members of each subcommittee.) SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS: Republicans: Democrats: James Sensenbrenner (WI), Chair Ralph Hall (TX), ranking Ken Calvert (CA) Jim Traficant (OH) Dave Weldon (FL) Tim Roemer (IN) Steve Stockman (TX) Bud Cramer (AL) Andrea Seastrand (CA) James Barcia (MI) Todd Tiahrt (KS) Jane Harman (CA) Van Hilleary (TN) Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) Dana Rohrabacher (CA) Alcee Hastings (FL) Matt Salmon (AZ) Mike Ward (KY) Thomas Davis (VA) Bill Luther (MN) Steve Largent (OK) Mark Foley (FL) vacancy Jurisdiction: "Legislative jurisdiction and general and special oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to astronautical and aeronautical research and development including: national space policy, including access to space; sub-orbital access and applications; National Aeronautics and Space Administration and its contractor and government-operated laboratories; space commercialization including the commercial space activities relating to the Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce; exploration and use of outer space; international space cooperation; National Space Council; space applications, space communications and related matters; and earth remote sensing policy." SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY: Republicans: Democrats: Connie Morella (MD), Chair John Tanner (TN), ranking Sue Myrick (NC) Paul McHale (PA) Ken Calvert (CA) Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX) Gil Gutknecht (MN) Karen McCarthy (MO) Andrea Seastrand (CA) Zoe Lofgren (CA) Todd Tiahrt (KS) Barbara Cubin (WY) Jurisdiction: "Legislative jurisdiction and general and special oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to competitiveness including: standards and standardization of measurement; the National Institute of Standards and Technology; the National Technical Information Service; competitiveness, including small business competitiveness; tax, antitrust, regulatory and other legal and governmental policies as they relate to technological development and commercialization; technology transfer; patent and intellectual property policy; international technology trade; research, development, and demonstration activities of the Department of Transportation; civil aviation research, development, and demonstration; research, development, and demonstration programs of the Federal Aviation Administration; surface and water transportation research, development, and demonstration programs; materials research, development, and demonstration and policy; and biotechnology policy." From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Jan 20 12:17:45 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11227; Fri, 20 Jan 95 12:17:43 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27858; 20 Jan 95 12:17 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00989; Fri, 20 Jan 95 09:16:03 PST Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:16:03 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Re: How to order GAO Reports (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Following are directions on how to order and access GAO Reports via the Internet and in printed form. You may be interested in a recent report on Ecosystem Management (GAO/RCED-94-111). Note that there is a fee to download files. The first printed copy is FREE of charge; additional copies are $2.00 each. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***************** ELECTRONIC ORDER INFORMATION **************** To access GAO reports as FULL TEXT ASCII electronic files from the Government Printing Office (GPO) BBS, follow these steps: 1) TELNET to and designate "port 3001" or dial 202-512-1387 (Menu Selection #22 on FEDWORLD); (***NOTE*** Depending on how your system accesses the TELNET feature, you may need to TELNET to this address: ^^^^^ and hit return a few times after connecting. You should receive a greeting screen. If you receive a prompt for "PASSWORD", something is wrong. Either re-try or contact GPO at the phone number below.) 2) Log in or register on system (type: "NEW" if first time user); 3) From the Main Menu, select "File Library System - 6"; 4) Select "S - Select Library"; 5) Type: "GAO_RPTS"; 6) Select file name: National Wildlife Refuge System: RC95007.TXT ***************************************************************** Any questions on using the GPO system should be referred to GPO at 202-512-1530. Please do NOT use this e-mail address for questions about the GPO system or for ordering reports. GPO charges a fee to download each file. Exact costs are listed. **************************************************************** PRINTED COPY ORDER INFORMATION Printed copies via U.S. Mail are also available by calling 202-512-6000 (TDD number is 301-413-0006), sending a FAX to 301-258-4066, or by writing to: P.O. Box 6015, Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. Please include the report number and complete postal mailing information in your request. Telephone requests can be made 24 hours a day, seven days a week. During non-business hours, leave a voice mail message with complete information, including the report number and postal mailing information. Copies may also be picked up at the GAO headquarters at: 700 - 4th St., NW, Washington, DC. Sorry, we are NOT able to accept electronic orders for printed documents at this time. The first printed copy is FREE of charge. Additional copies are $2.00. **************************************************************** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON GAO REPORTS GAO's Daily and Monthly Listing of Reports The U.S. General Accounting Office, Congress' Watchdog agency, now has available a daily electronic posting of released reports. The "GAO Daybook" is the daily listing of released GAO reports. The "Reports and Testimonies Issued in Month/Year", includes abstracts of the items issued that month, arranged by subject. To access both the "GAO Daybook" and "Reports and Testimonies Issued in Month/Year" on the INTERNET simply: - use the TELNET feature on your system, - access the site , - log on as "guest" (password: "visitor" - must use LOWER case), and - type "go gao" at the main menu (*NOTE* The CapAccess system has been experiencing extremely heavy loads and may not accept guest logins. We apologize for any inconvenience and suggest trying at a later time.) Ordering information is included in the GAO menu. Any questions or comments can be sent to . Please do NOT use this address for ordering reports. *************************************************************** GAO'S DAYBOOK VIA INTERNET NEWSGROUPS GAO's Daybook is also available via INTERNET Newsgroups. Daily postings are made to: alt.politics.org.misc *************************************************************** GAO'S DAYBOOK VIA FAX GAO's Daybook is available by FAX, also. The automated voice menu number is: 301-258-4097 You can use a touch tone telephone to access a menu system to request GAO Daybooks - via FAX - 24 hours a day. You only need your FAX number and a touch tone telephone for this service. There is no charge for this service. *************************************************************** GAO ANNUAL INDEX GAO Abstracts and Index of Reports and Testimony: Fiscal Year 1993 (GAO/OIMC-94-3A and GAO/OIMC-94-3B) A two volume set, this valuable reference publication provides an excellent overview of the U.S. General Accounting Office's (GAO) work during FY 1993. The first volume (219 pages) summarizes more than 1,000 reports issued between October 1992 and September 1993. The second volume (418 pages) contains comprehensive indexes that allow the reader to quickly locate documents of interest. To order a FREE copy, see PRINTED COPY ORDER INFORMATION section above. *************************************************************** SUBSCRIPTION: GAO'S MONTHLY CATALOG OF REPORTS & TESTIMONY Each month, GAO issues a catalog titled "Reports and Testimonies Issued in Month/Year". This catalog includes abstracts of the items issued that month, arranged by subject. The catalog also includes an order form and order information. Subject areas include: Health, Defense, Environment, Transportation, Education, International Affairs, Budget, Tax, and many other subject areas involving federal spending. For a FREE mail subscription to GAO's "Reports and Testimonies Issued in Month/Year", please send a request via one of the modes described above in the PRINTED COPY ORDER INFORMATION section. *************************************************************** GAO REPORTS CATALOGED ON OCLC All current GAO reports are cataloged on the OCLC system. *************************************************************** SUGGESTIONS/COMMENTS GAO is very interested in your feedback on products and services. We welcome any suggestions you might have to help improve our services. Because of the volume of inquiries, we are unable to directly respond to each suggestion. However, we can assure you that all comments posted will be read and passed on to the appropriate GAO office. Please forward comments and suggestions to: Thank you. *************************************************************** BACKGROUND The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) is a nonpartisan agency within the legislative branch of government. GAO conducts audits, surveys, investigations, and evaluations of federal programs. This work is either self initiated or done at the request of congressional committees or members. GAO's findings and recommendations are published as reports to congressional members or delivered as testimony to congressional committees. ************************************************************* FUTURE PLANS Future plans for electronic distribution of GAO's reports include establishing a dedicated INTERNET site. The GAO INTERNET site will host the full text of all newly released GAO reports and search and retrieval options. Current plans call for establishing a GOPHER service, Anonymous FTP capablitity and a WAIS server. Details are still being developed and implementation is expected in 1995. The future GAO INTERNET site will NOT charge for downloading information. ************************************************************* Thank You! Keith Bonney Information Services Center Office of Information Management and Communications U.S. General Accounting Office Room 6530 Washington, DC 20548 * 202-512-4448 VOICE* 202-512-3373 FAX* *Note: Please do NOT use this address/number for ordering GAO reports. Please see information above. Thank you! From mallen@nsf.gov Fri Dec 2 14:41:03 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04616; Fri, 2 Dec 94 14:41:01 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25700; 2 Dec 94 14:40 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27592; Fri, 2 Dec 94 11:38:43 PST Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA14291 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:38:27 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by xrelay.nsf.gov id AA786407767; Fri, 02 Dec 94 14:34:11 EST Date: Fri, 02 Dec 94 14:34:11 EST From: mallen@nsf.gov Message-Id: <9411027864.AA786407767@xrelay.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Status: ORp MEMORANDUM 2 December 1994 TO: LTER Principal Investigators FROM: Mike Allen SUBJECT: LTER Supplement Requests for Fiscal Year 1995 The purpose of this communication is to clarify the allowable requests and application procedures for supplemental funding for LTER projects in Fiscal Year 1995. You will notice that the scope of the requests continues to change in response to the changing needs and opportunities for LTER. Please communicate directly with me at the earliest opportunity if further clarification is needed. FIRST, each LTER project may submit only ONE supplement request package. Items in the package must be individually justified in the context of LTER. The text must not exceed 10 pages total. Only one budget may be submitted. A budget justification statement should make it completely clear what costs are attributable to each allowable request item (from the listing below). SECOND, requests should be sent directly to me and be postmarked no later than Friday, March 17, 1995 (earlier is better). Original and 10 copies must be sent in the same package. THIRD, allowable requests include: - Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU); Research Assistantships for Minority High School Students (RAMHSS); and involvement of high school science groups (i.e. teacher plus 3-6 students). - Research Opportunity Awards (ROA) for LTER project participation by faculty from small institutions plus one or two students from that institution. FOURTH, available funds will be limited (perhaps as much as $0.5 M). In no case should these requests exceed $40K. As always, cost sharing from institutional and other non-NSF sources is strongly encouraged and will reflect positively in the evaluation of the supplement requests. FINALLY, in considering and scoping out what is desirable and realistic, please keep reminding yourselves that LTER is fundamentally a network oriented, collaborative research effort, the common denominators for which are the five core research areas and the long time frame. From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Jan 12 20:20:39 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02209; Thu, 12 Jan 95 20:20:35 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab09198; 12 Jan 95 20:20 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19596; Thu, 12 Jan 95 17:15:42 PST Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 17:15:42 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: GIBBONS TESTIMONY,1/6/95, FYI (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Please excuse the duplication if you've already seen this. >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Below is a copy of the testimony of Jack Gibbons, Science Advisor to the President, at last week's House Science Committee hearing. >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> <<<<<< Attached TEXT file follows >>>>>> THE WHITE HOUSE Office of Science and Technology Policy ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release January 6, 1995 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN H. GIBBONS, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY before the Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives January 6, 1995 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Clinton/Gore Administration, I thank you for this opportunity to present our vision of the future in science and technology. We wholeheartedly agree with you that the advancement of science and technology is a vital national goal which is absolutely essential for the future well being of our people and our Nation. And we believe government has a key role to play in working with industry and academia to achieve that goal. As Peter Drucker has noted, "Long range planning does not deal with future decisions, but with the future of present decisions." So to start off the new dialogue between the Administration and Congress on present decisions about science and technology and their impacts on our Nation's future, I would like to focus on five things today: * First, elucidate the goals -- from economic growth, to environmental protection, to national security -- of the Administration's science and technology policies; * Second, highlight a few of the many spectacular results from past Federal investments in science and technology; * Third, describe a few of the Administration's current science and technology initiatives and the benefits we anticipate they may provide in the coming years; * Fourth, summarize how the Administration has reorganized Federal science and technology policy making to improve the links between government and the private sector and to maximize the return on Federal investments in research and development; and * Fifth, discuss the inextricable links between science and technology. GOALS FOR INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY As enunciated by the President in his first month in office, our science and technology policies and programs are directed toward three basic goals: Long-term economic growth that creates jobs and protects the environment; Making government more efficient and more responsive; World leadership in basic science, mathematics, and engineering. Government is an essential actor in making sure science and technology help us reach our goals. Many of the benefits science and technology confer are in areas that are either outside the market or imperfectly subject to market forces -- such things as a strong national defense, first-class education and training, improved environmental quality, and fundamental scientific research. In these areas, a strong government presence in R&D investments is essential. A government role is also vital in promoting technologies that are critical to economic growth, the creation of good jobs, and meeting the common needs of the nation, but cannot attract adequate private investment. In our partnerships with business for pre-commercial technology development, our cardinal rule is to use government funds only where they are essential and where the payoff to society as a whole is large. We invest government funds, on a cost-shared basis, where private sector investment is not adequate to the job because of unacceptably high technical risks, prohibitive cost, long payback horizons, or where the returns cannot be captured by the investing firm but spill out to competitors, other firms, or society at large. Experience teaches us that the likelihood is that the payoff on government investments in science and technology, if judicially made, will be enormous. It is our steadfast belief that thoughtful federal spending on science and technology is simply good economic policy. Many economic studies have shown that federal money invested in science and technology brings, on average, a 50 percent rate of return to U.S. society. ANTICIPATING THE RESULTS OF S&T INVESTMENTS The record of the past half-century clearly shows a high average rate of return on public and private investments in science and technology. Of course, we can only make educated guesses about which investments will catalyze revolutionary developments in science and technology, and we must expect some failures. One of my early mentors, Alvin Weinberg, always said "Never make a prediction until you're very old; otherwise you might live to see it not come true." But if the past is any predictor, our expectations for an excellent return on our investments are not misplaced. Had you convened a hearing like today's in January 1975, you might, for instance, have received testimony concerning the Administration's belief that emerging computer and telecommunications technologies would soon change the conduct of warfare; that continued funding of molecular biology would yield revolutionary advances in medical diagnosis and treatments; that progress on environmental pollution required major additional Federal research attention; or that technology could both quiet the noise and cut fuel consumption in airplanes. Decisions made at that time to invest taxpayer dollars in those areas turned out to be wise, for predictable as well as for unforeseen reasons. * Public investments in fundamental research and development on information technologies did, in fact, revolutionize the conduct of warfare -- both the weaponry deployed and the tools used to prevent or to prepare for war. Just as importantly, those investments changed the nature of commerce, indeed the nature of everyday life in this country. Early investments in ARPANet, the first national computer network, have brought us to the 25th anniversary of the Internet, a prototype of the Global Information Infrastructure. When it started out, ARPANet could transmit only 56,000 bits of data per second. Today, networks using technology several generations more advanced routinely transmit 45 million bits a second -- almost a thousand times faster. The Federal government provided a relatively small catalyst (a few tens of millions of dollars annually) that has been matched more than a hundred times over by private- sector investment in the Internet. Today, dozens of companies are investing millions of dollars and competing to provide Internet connections and new services to the tens of millions of Internet users around the world. * Public investments in biomedical research have, as we expected 20 years ago, improved our understanding of the root causes of many diseases, leading to better preventive and treatment techniques. What we could not predict, but benefit from nonetheless, is the multi- faceted biotechnology industry that did not exist 20 years ago. Biomedical research spawned this industry that already accounts for 100,000 jobs and $8 billion in annual sales. We owe incredible advances in agriculture and in chemical and pharmaceuticals processing, as well as our ability to capture billion dollar markets in health care and other industries, to fundamental research in molecular biology and development of advanced instrumentation funded by the U.S. government. * Investments in environmental research and development have improved air quality, moved us toward our goal of "fishable, swimmable" waters, and, as science often does, revealed unanticipated impacts of human life on the natural systems that support us. Twenty years ago, for instance, we determined a need to understand the impacts of emissions of anthropogenic chlorine, bromine, and fluorine on stratospheric ozone. Today we know unequivocally that the ozone layer is being depleted because of human activities. This knowledge has led to international agreements that limit the production and use of ozone-depleting chemicals. At the same time, advances in technology have resulted in cost-effective substitutes that do not degrade the ozone layer. Because of the research and early detection of stratospheric ozone depletion, technological response has enabled us to largely avert a major global health problem while still providing the benefits of air conditioning, refrigeration, and other necessities and amenities that once depended on ozone- destroying chemicals. * Twenty years ago, civilian jet airliners were powered by fuel-guzzling turbojet engines that polluted the environment and disturbed people living near airports and under airline flight paths. Today, thanks to NASA research in combustion, turbomachinery, lubrication, aerodynamics, acoustics, and materials and structures, those airliners are 50 percent quieter, 25 percent more fuel efficient, and emit less than half the atmospheric pollutants. Many NASA-developed technologies have been incorporated directly into the current commercial turbofan engines, helping U.S. manufacturers attain world leadership in technology and market share. One could reasonably say that we got even more than we bargained for from the government's S&T investments of 20 years ago. They were strategic, meaning they were thoughtfully directed toward goals such as national security, high quality health care, and environmental quality. And, in hindsight, they were more than fully successful. ADMINISTRATION INVESTMENTS IN THE FUTURE I am confident our successors in governance in 2015 will be able to say the same about many current S&T investments -- if, that is, they receive adequate financial support, both public and private. The Administration's science and technology investments are focused on six priority areas: * A healthy, educated citizenry; * Job creation and economic growth; * World leadership in science, mathematics and engineering; * Improved environmental quality; * Harnessing information technology; * Enhanced national security. Today I would like to describe a few of the initiatives we believe will ensure long term economic growth, a broader knowledge base to support that growth, and a better quality of life for Americans. * Technology for Economic Growth. The Administration has made a major commitment to work with the private sector on the development and deployment of advanced civilian industrial technologies, both here and abroad. Environmental technologies -- technologies that enable delivery of goods and services with less environmental pollution and technologies that trap pollutants or clean up pollution -- receive special emphasis in our investments. They will allow us to pursue our dual goals of economic development and environmental protection because we will be producing higher value goods and services with less energy, less waste, and less environmental harm. During the next twenty years, U.S. industries can significantly expand their share of what is presently a $300-billion global industry in environmental technologies. The potential public and private returns on investments in environmental technologies are tremendous. This vision of economic growth combined with protection of the environment is not unfounded fantasy. Let me give a couple of examples. Over the past 15 years, the Intel Corporation (at their Portland, Oregon, plant) has more than doubled its production of semiconductors with no increase in emissions, and no new investments in pollution emissions control technologies. Instead, they have redesigned their entire production process to make higher quality chips with less environmental impact. Also over the past 15 years, research into more efficient wind turbines and expanding markets have reduced the cost of wind-generated electricity by a factor of eight (from over $.40/kilowatt-hour to less than $.06/kilowatt-hour) and made the U.S. the leader in global wind energy production. These changes are indicative of what can happen within a time span of twenty years and give us a sense of what is possible as we look forward to the year 2015. Alan Kay at Apple Computer was right when he said, "The best way to predict the future is to make it happen." For this reason, it is necessary for us to create strategic alliances with industry, to set long-term goals, to stimulate innovation, and to make sure our industries move significantly beyond their global competitors. We are doing this, for example, with the Clean Car Initiative and our work with the U.S. construction industry. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, also known as the Clean Car Initiative, is one of our premiere ventures into cooperative civilian industrial technology development. In it, we are tackling a technological challenge as tough as putting a man on the moon -- that is, to develop within 10 years a car with 3 times the efficiency of today's automobiles with no sacrifice in cost, comfort, or safety. If the project succeeds, the payoff to the public will be huge in terms of less dependence on foreign oil and lower emissions of greenhouse gases. The project also holds the promise of an extremely attractive car for world markets in the 21st century and a thriving U.S. auto industry to produce them. The government (in this case, a consortium of Federal agencies) and industry (the Big 3 automakers and many suppliers of materials and equipment) are working closely together here to break highly challenging technological bottlenecks where the benefits are as much societal as commercial. In our Building and Construction Initiative, our goal is to develop better construction technologies to improve the competitive performance of the U.S. industry, raise the life cycle performance of buildings, and protect public safety and the environment. The initiative responds to a high level of industry interest and combines government and industry goals. Construction is one of the nation's largest industries, with employment of 6 million and a total yearly value of close to $800 billion, yet U.S. building technology lags behind that of foreign countries and the incidence of injury in construction work is among the highest of all industries. We are determined, in full cooperation with industry, to enable, by 2003, the following future: * Better constructed facilities, meaning: a 50 percent reduction in delivery time; a 50 percent reduction in operation, maintenance, and energy costs; a 30 percent improvement in productivity and comfort; 50 percent fewer occupant-related injuries and illnesses; 50 percent less waste and pollution; and 50 percent more durability and flexibility. * Improved health and safety of construction workers, meaning a 50 percent reduction in construction work injuries and illnesses. This initiative is dedicated to removing nontechnical barriers to innovation, as well as putting greater emphasis on research and development and aligning government programs appropriately with industry needs. * Investing in Fundamental Knowledge. America's future demands investment in expanding our knowledge base, in other words, in our people, institutions, and ideas. Science is an essential part of that investment -- an endless and sustainable resource with extraordinary dividends. The nation's investment in world leadership in science, engineering, and mathematics has yielded a scientific enterprise without peer, whether measured in terms of discoveries, citations, awards and prizes, advanced education, or contributions to industrial and informational innovation. Our scientific strength is a treasure this Administration intends to sustain and build on for the future. We have pledged (as described in Science in the National Interest) to: * maintain leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge; * enhance connections between fundamental research and national goals, such as economic prosperity, national security, health, and environmental responsibility; * stimulate partnerships that promote investments in fundamental science and engineering and effective use of physical, human, and financial resources; * produce the finest scientists and engineers for the twenty-first century; and * raise scientific and technological literacy of all Americans. Broad investment in basic research is essential to our national defense strategy. A strong domestic science base supporting a robust national security S&T program is critical to preserving the technological superiority that characterizes our military advantage. The Administration's strategy is to apply resources broadly at the basic research level and make further investment decisions as emerging technologies reveal the most effective payoff areas. Through these investments in fundamental science, we can continue our science and technology advances, position ourselves to take advantage of maturing technologies, and minimize our vulnerability to surprise. We have given particular emphasis in the first two years of this Administration to a human resources development strategy aimed at producing the cadre of experts necessary for the scientific enterprise of the future; for research and development; for applied fields and industries; and for competing in a global marketplace. We are reevaluating the breadth and nature of graduate training -- recognizing that we are not training our scientists merely to work in laboratories and universities. We are projecting the workforce needs of our future economy and developing methods for fostering the basic skills necessary for all workers. I cannot predict the science success stories of 2015. But our strong investment program for basic research sets the stage for the equivalent of: * Fiber optics -- which were a germ of an idea in 1966 but now carry most U.S. long-distance telecommunications; * The Hubble Space Telescope -- which has opened our eyes to distant galaxies in the same way the early space program opened our eyes to the wonders of our small planet and solar system; * Global positioning system -- a confluence of basic research in physics, software, communications, and high-speed electronics first tapped for military purposes and now rapidly expanding into commercial markets for navigation and air safety and monitoring Earth's large scale ecosystems; * Severe weather prediction -- which has emerged from the integration of space platforms, large computing power, and continued atmospheric science research. I am sure we will see equally impressive and revolutionary developments in the coming years -- provided we maintain our strong commitment to basic research. My confidence stems, at least in part, from the fact that the process of good science inherently contains a healthy degree of skepticism and willingness to weigh new evidence. For example, over the past two decades, researchers in the United States and other countries, particularly Brazil, have debated the rate of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. The answer affects calculations of the amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere. In a NASA-sponsored study using Landsat data, this debate was effectively resolved, with the study showing that the rate of deforestation was, in fact, lower than many thought. Our polar-orbiting satellites also provide information about the atmospheric cooling effects of volcanic emissions, specifically from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines. The extent and the duration of the effects of such natural phenomena on global warming must be considered in trying to understand fluctuations in the climate record. As a nation, we should take great pride in our ability to undertake policy-relevant scientific investigations designed to provide information necessary to, but not driven by, the policy debate. * Space and Aeronautics. The commitment the Administration has made in space and aeronautics technologies reflects the critical role these technologies play in advancing U.S. economic, national security, and foreign policy interests. The international space station is perhaps the Administration's most visible commitment to US leadership in aerospace technology. As you know, early in the Administration we undertook a redesign of the space station to reduce its cost, to improve its performance and safety, to accelerate its schedule, and to make it more relevant to today's economic and political climate. The inclusion of Russia as full partners in the station program reflects not only the benefits we believe can be derived from the incorporation of Russian space technology, but also the importance of broad international cooperation in the pursuit of fundamental scientific research. We expect that research on board the space station will provide important new scientific and technical insights and will lay the groundwork for mankind's next steps into space. This Administration is also committed to making investments that will allow industry to dramatically reduce the cost of space transportation. In August, the President directed NASA to begin development of a new generation of launch vehicle technologies that could eventually replace the expensive Space Shuttle. The President also directed the Department of Defense to develop a strategy for evolving the existing launch vehicles into a fleet of vehicles that is significantly more cost effective. These government actions, combined with the energy and creativity of the private sector, not only holds out the possibility for much less expensive access to space for science, exploration, and national security, but lays the foundation for a reemergence of US industry as the dominant player in the commercial space launch market. The Administration's commitment to space technology research has not lessened its commitment to space science and applications. Through its Global Change research program -- including NASA's Mission to Planet Earth program -- we will gain new insights into the fundamental processes of our planet. These insights can have a positive effect on our economy as we benefit from new knowledge of weather prediction, agriculture, disaster prediction, and other complex processes. Besides exploring out own planet, NASA is planning a new generation of small, low-cost spacecraft that will provide new opportunities for exploration and discovery elsewhere in the solar system. These new programs, combined with our sustained commitment to important facilities such as the Hubble Space Telescope, will expand our already significant efforts to understand the nature of the universe in which we live. The U.S. aeronautics industry has benefited greatly from its strong research and technology partnership with the Federal Government. U.S. firms lead the world in the manufacture of aircraft, engines, avionics, and air transportation system equipment. This leadership role has translated into hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs and a significant contribution to our balance of trade -- more than $28 billion in 1993 on exports of $40 billion. The Administration's continued support for aeronautics technologies will help to ensure that U.S. industry remains a world leader in the development of new aircraft and engines. Federal R&D will also play an important role in helping to ensure the development and implementation of a new, efficient, safe, and affordable global air transportation system. In particular, new technologies such as the Global Positioning Systems (GPS) will play a significant role in this process and may result in billions of dollars in annual saving to the airlines and a significant global market for new U.S. products and services. Finally, Federal R&D will help to ensure the long-term environmental compatibility of the aviation system. New technologies hold the promise of even greater increases in energy efficiency and further significant reductions in noise and potentially harmful chemical emissions. PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL S&T ENTERPRISE Science and technology are essential to the various missions of the Federal departments and agencies. Looking to the future, our agencies must have a research and development base that will continually refresh and improve the ways in which we carry out our responsibilities. Coordination and Streamlining In order to confront the budgetary, scientific, and technological challenges of the 21st century, the Administration recognized that significant changes were needed in the way we plan and fund Federal R&D. The traditional single-agency, single-discipline approach to problem solving must be supplanted by a coordinated, multi-agency, interdisciplinary approach. Multi-dimensional problems can only be addressed by bringing together natural and social scientists, economists, engineers, and policymakers. For too long, science has been decoupled from informing policy decisions. Fixing this disconnect has been one of our highest priorities. Over the past two years, the Administration has been working to improve the Federal R&D enterprise in many ways. For the first time, the United States has a comprehensive, coordinated Cabinet level body devoted to the Federal R&D enterprise. In November 1993, the President created the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The principal purpose of the NSTC is to: * identify national goals that require concerted R&D efforts; * identify the high-priority R&D needed to meet those goals; and * coordinate R&D government wide to make sure that adequate attention is given to high-priority areas, and to avoid wasteful duplication Although each agency, to accomplish its missions, must have R&D directed to its particular needs, there are some commonalities in the science and technology needs of all the agencies. Put another way, overarching national goals typically cross agency boundaries. This is particularly true because of the highly interactive nature of research and development with its many feedback mechanisms. The NSTC provides a structure in which to prioritize the many legitimate demands on the public's R&D dollar. It assures a forum where critical national needs cannot be pushed aside by urgent and parochial agency needs. It can sensitize agencies to the advantage of symbiosis over isolated pursuit of objectives. Through its nine standing committees, the NSTC has identified R&D priorities that link our S&T activities to critical national goals. Unprecedented cooperation among the member agencies plus a great deal of hard work in 1994 enabled these committees systematically to prepare research and development strategies to meet the goals. OSTP then worked with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure the priority areas received adequate attention -- all within a level R&D budget. The result is a coherent, efficient R&D agenda. To meet the Nation's goals in the years ahead -- and to continue meeting them as the goals themselves evolve -- requires that we set priorities for R&D now, with a farsighted vision for the future because most of the S&T enterprise is inherently a multi-decade process. Even within the science community, it can take decades to recognize the significance of a scientific discovery. The NSTC provides the mechanism for providing the vision and deriving priorities. By creating a "virtual" S&T organization, the NSTC enables the Administration to maintain a productive research and development activity in each S&T- dependent agency while simultaneously achieving the efficiencies of a cross-linked system. In addition to its beneficial impacts on the R&D budget, the NSTC has several important policy directives to its credit. For instance, the President has issued policy directives that will ensure continuity and efficiency in the Landsat and polar- orbiting satellite systems and ensure the appropriate agencies focus on the Nation's long term space launch needs. All of the NSTC's work is undertaken in cooperation with the private sector. One of our key links to the private sector is the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology whose members include eminent industry leaders and academic researchers, including Nobel Prize winners. Issues ranging from technology development to education and training to prevention of deadly conflict require close interaction between government and private sector experts to ensure ultimate success in our efforts. Cooperation with the Private Sector Technology is a powerful driver of economic growth. Over the past 50 years, at least a quarter of U.S. economic growth -- possibly as much as half -- came from new technology. These advances created millions of good new jobs, a cleaner environment, better health and longer lives, new opportunities for individuals, and enrichment of our lives in ways we couldn't imagine half a century ago. Superior technology, moreover, is vital to U.S. national security. In a world of ever tougher global competition, U.S. prosperity depends as never before on our ability to master new technology in areas like information, biotechnology, and advanced materials and to build on S&T advances made in other countries. Private businesses are the principal actors in converting technology to goods and services, to profits and jobs, and they have supported much of the research needed to develop new technologies. But the public (government) has three indispensable roles to play in advancing technology: 1) ensuring a strong base of fundamental science; 2) providing a business environment that encourages innovation and investment; and 3) investing in research that is critical to the economic and social needs of the nation, but cannot attract adequate private support. The accelerating pace of technological advance, ever shorter product cycles, and rapid worldwide diffusion of technologies mean that many companies are finding it harder to justify investment in risky or lower yield R&D than in the past. Today, the payback to the investing company is often less than half the spillover, or "social return," to society at large. This means that government R&D partnerships with industry in growth-enhancing technologies are more important than ever. Without government to share the risk at the pre-commercial stage, individual companies are reluctant to take the plunge, especially where a substantial fraction of the total return cannot be captured by a company. The government partnership fosters technology advance that otherwise might not be made -- or would be made in foreign countries, with most of the benefit going to their citizens. In general, where there are technological risks, R&D projects with a strong combination of potential public and commercial benefits merit a mix of government and industry support. For example, education and training technologies that challenge and reward all our children and bring lifelong learning within reach of everyone have multiple public and private benefits: a better educated citizenry, a world-class work force, opportunities for people to retrain themselves in response to changing technologies and jobs, and a rich commercial market for the learning technologies themselves. Government's role in creating the National Information Infrastructure is not only to share the costs of R&D for basic advances in computing and telecommunication. It is also to make sure that privately financed information superhighways are accessible to all Americans. The problem of capturing returns on private sector R&D investments is especially great in widely dispersed and fragmented industries such as agriculture or building and construction. Government must support technology advance in these industries, at least on a cost-shared basis, or it won't get done. This has been long recognized in agriculture, where government support of R&D goes back to 1862, with the foundation of land grant colleges across the nation. Today, many in industry are taking a new, forward-looking view of their R&D programs. Corporate cost-cutting drives have led to focusing in-house research on technologies that are close to commercialization, at the expense of more basic, longer term, or riskier research. The new model of best practice that is taking form is to create partnerships for riskier, generic, pre- commercial R&D -- teaming with other companies, with universities, and with the government. We have re-invented these partnership programs to make sure that they are: * market-driven, with industry leading the joint research agenda; * cost-shared, with the private sector putting up half or more of the money, as a quasi-market test to make sure the technological risk is worth taking; * competitive and peer-reviewed, to guard against pork in the selection of research projects; and * evaluated periodically and rigorously to make sure that the projects are having the intended effect. With the assistance of wise government policies, U.S. companies have recently regained a competitive edge in critical technologies, such as semiconductors, once thought lost to Japanese and other competitors. We must not return to the days when American scientists and inventors made breakthrough innovations, only to see the jobs and profits growing out of discoveries and inventions flow to overseas competitors. In a fiercely competitive world market place, it would be unwise to rely solely on those programs and policies that worked during the Cold War but are unsuited for today's needs. THE LINK BETWEEN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY The Clinton/Gore Administration's science and technology initiatives are based on a recognition that science and technology are linked in a multitude of ways, each building constantly on the gains in the other domain. It is certainly true that all technological advance ultimately depends on fundamental science, and the highly trained people educated at our universities and colleges. But old distinctions between "basic" and "applied" science no longer make sense in today's laboratories, where, for instance, newly derived fundamental understanding of molecular biology quickly yields ideas for new products and manufacturing processes -- which, in turn, not only raise questions for further fundamental research but also give rise to new technologies that enable more effective research. And where progress in such fundamental fields as astronomy or elementary particles depend upon technological breakthroughs in optics, computing, or superconductors. The relationship between basic research, applied research, technology development, and commercialization is not a linear progression. Rather, it is full of feedback loops. Often a technical or engineering advance will stimulate or enable scientific inquiry. For example, cars powered by internal combustion engines were running on the road before scientists began to understand, even imperfectly, some fundamental principles of combustion. Magnetic resonance imaging was founded on basic research in nuclear physics -- but it could not have been put to practical use in medical diagnostics without the separate but parallel development of a number of sophisticated technologies, especially the microprocessor, the "computer-on-a- chip" that could be built directly into the instrument. The cancer treatment drug taxol is derived from the yew tree of the Pacific Northwest, and without the research to classify and study the natural plants and animals it might never have been found. And most of today's experimental science has become totally dependent on the most recently developed technology. The search for something practical often forces a new look at the scientific principles that underlie new phenomena; the prepared mind is ready to take a leap into the practical application. Ernest Shockley, an AT&T Bell Laboratory physicist, invented the transistor while engaged in a lab program to develop better switches -- but the scientific work of previous decades on solid state physics and quantum mechanics was absolutely essential to the invention. The early age of science provides equally interesting examples. Galileo, who developed fundamental knowledge of astronomy, was also an inventor who spent much of his time and energy demanding payment for his practical inventions. The blending of discovery and application is repeated across virtually all science and engineering -- from biomedicine to environment to space exploration and aeronautics to materials and manufacturing. Basic research on materials results in stronger, long lasting roads and bridges and lighter, but safer airplanes and cars. Today's wonder drugs and tomorrow's bioremediation of chemical wastes are direct products of our continuing investments in biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science. The fundamental point is that basic science, applied science, and technology, though different in approach, motivation, and scale, are profoundly interdependent. CONCLUSION Mr. Chairman, we welcome the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with Congress, with all Americans, about the value of our investments in science and technology. Like you, this Administration envisions a future of sustained and responsible growth of the U.S. economy based, in large part, on new discoveries and improved technologies derived from those discoveries. There has been and will continue to be strenuous debate about the appropriate role for government in science and technology. Some people believe that fundamental science --basic research -- is the only area in which government belongs. As I have already said, this Administration does not believe it benefits the American people to try to draw that line in the sand. The Clinton/Gore Administration believes government has an essential role in technology development as well. Economic growth, quality of life, national security -- all these things depend on a comprehensive science and technology investment program. For our children and grandchildren to succeed in the knowledge-based, highly competitive global economy, the Federal government must maintain a strong commitment to investment in the future, in other words, to investment in science and technology linked to long term goals. We are convinced that technology is the engine of economic growth that will ensure good jobs and a higher quality of life. We know that scientific knowledge is the key to the future . . . it is the fuel for the engine. The Cabinet Secretaries and Agency Heads here today will all agree that the Federal Departments and Agencies are working together in unprecedented cooperation to provide essential science and technology services to the American taxpayer in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The "virtual agency" created by the NSTC eliminates duplication and waste and gets maximum advantage from each investment dollar. Budgetary constraints have made the workings of the NSTC absolutely essential, and we have succeeded in shifting resources to enable the S&T portion of the budget to be maintained and even slightly increased in key areas. We know from your record, Mr. Chairman, that you, too, support science and technology and recognize the vital role they play in the future of our economic, environmental, and national security. But in looking at the Contract With America, along with the FY '94 and FY '95 Republican budgets and other proposals for paying for the Contract, we are concerned. The Clinton/Gore Administration shares your commitment to reduce budget deficits and the inefficiencies in government. We have worked, with great success, to bring the budget deficit down, to cut government employment and spending. But we have also taken great care not to sacrifice our investments in the future -- in the well being of our children and grandchildren -- in the process, by commiting ourselves to sustained support of science and technology. Our initial interpretation of proposals to fund the Contract With America raises our concerns that we will not be able to develop and disseminate the education technologies our children will need to compete in the global, knowledge-based economy; that we will not be able to invest in research that could ensure this Nation's continued preeminence in industries dependent on biotechnology or information and communications technologies; that, in fact, between now and the end of the century this Nation may find itself in wholesale, devastating retreat from the investments on which our future depends -- investments in science and technology. This Administration will stand against that retreat because it cuts to the core of our guiding premise: we must invest in our children's future in ways that promise the highest payoff. We are a nation of explorers. We need science and technology to nurture our national soul as well as our economic well being. The Clinton/Gore Administration wants to work with the Congress to achieve the goals of the American people, including long term economic growth, an efficient and responsive government, and world leadership in science, engineering, and mathematics. Thank you. From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Jan 24 13:41:08 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA22316; Tue, 24 Jan 95 13:41:06 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04603; 24 Jan 95 13:41 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24447; Tue, 24 Jan 95 10:32:42 PST Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 10:32:41 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Senate Bill 93 on Ecosystem Management (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, lmer@lternet.washington.edu, erg@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Senate 93 on Ecosystem Management On January 4, Senator Hatfield introduced S. 93, Ecosystem Management Act of 1995. Below is an excerpt received over a listserver. To view the full bill, via the Internet, see URL http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for legislation of the 104th Congress. You can search by the bill number or keyword "environment." The bill would define the term "ecosystem management" and create an Ecosystem Management Commission. Here's an excerpt of the beginning: > 104th CONGRESS > > 1st Session > > S. 93 > > To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to > provide for ecosystem management, and for other purposes. > > IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES > > January 4, 1995 > > Mr. Hatfield introduced the following bill; which was read > twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural > Resources > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > A BILL > > To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to > provide for ecosystem management, and for other purposes. > > Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives > of the United States of America in Congress assembled, > > SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. > > This Act may be cited as the `Ecosystem Management Act of > 1995'. > > SEC. 2. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT. > > (a) Definitions: Section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and > Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702) is amended by > adding at the end the following new subsections: > > `(q) The term `Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe, band, > nation, or other organized group or community (including > any Alaska Native village or Regional Corporation > established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement > Act (43 U.S.C.1601 et seq.)) that is recognized as eligible > for the special services provided by the United States to > Indians because of their status as Indians.> > `(r) The term `systems approach', with respect to an > ecosystem, means an interdisciplinary scientific method of > analyzing the ecosystem as a whole that takes into account > the interconnections of the ecosystem. > > `(s) The term `tribal organization' has the meaning given > such term in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and > Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l)).'. > > (b) Ecosystem Management: Title II of the Federal Land > Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1711 et > seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new > sections: >> > `ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT > > `Sec. 216. It is the policy of the Federal Government to > carry out ecosystem management with respect to public > lands in accordance with the following principles: > > `(1) Human populations form an integral part of ecosystems. > > `(2) It is important to address human needs in the context of other environmental attributes-- > > `(A) in recognition of the dependency of human > economies on viable ecosystems; and > > `(B) in order to ensure diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems. > > `(3) A systems approach to ecosystem management > furthers the goal of conserving biodiversity. > > `(4) Ecosystem management provides for the following: > > `(A) The promotion of the stewardship of natural > resources. > > `(B) The formation of partnerships of public and > private interests to achieve shared goals for > the stewardship of natural resources. > > `(C) The promotion of public participation in > decisions and activities related to the > stewardship of natural resources. > > `(D) The use of the best available scientific > knowledge and technology to achieve the stewardship of natural resources. > > > `(E) The establishment of cooperative planning > and management activities to protect and manage > ecosystems that cross jurisdictional boundaries. > > `(F) The implementation of cooperative, coordin- > ated planning activities among Federal, tribal, > State, local, and private landowners. > > `ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT COMMISSION > > `Sec. 217. (a) Establishment: There is established an > Ecosystem Management Commission (referred to in this section as the `Commission'). ******************************* end of excerpt *********************** From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Jan 25 11:05:47 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25080; Wed, 25 Jan 95 11:05:45 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01067; 25 Jan 95 11:05 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01292; Wed, 25 Jan 95 08:02:28 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28771; Wed, 25 Jan 1995 09:00:38 -0700 Message-Id: <9501251600.AA28771@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 09:00:38 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR House Appropriations Subcommittee Considers Cutting DOE FYI No. 10, January 24, 1995 The change-over of power in Congress has both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue looking for budget cuts and places to pare back government. Suggestions have included abolition of entire departments, with the Department of Energy being a prime target. Although the Administration has backed away from such drastic action, President Clinton has proposed cutting approximately ten percent ($10.6 billion) from DOE's projected budget over the next five years (see FYI #172, 1994.) In the House, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds DOE, held its first hearing on January 18 on the department's programs. The purpose, said new chairman John Myers (R-IN), was to "review the government functions within the Department of Energy that we could do without," and find areas in which to "make some recissions on funds appropriated for this year [fiscal year 1995]." (Recissions cancel funds already provided by law.) Among the witnesses, conservative think tanks were represented by Scott Hodge, a Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; Jerry Taylor, director of Natural Resource Studies at the CATO Institute, and Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The final witness, Vic Rezendes, is director of Energy Issues at the General Accounting Office (GAO), which has criticized DOE's "long history of management problems." All the witnesses agreed on the need for reexamining the appropriate role for the federal government versus state and local governments and private industry. Hodge and Taylor advocated dismantling DOE entirely. Suggestions included giving its research functions to an agency like NSF, its environmental functions to EPA, its defense activities to the Defense Department or a non-Cabinet agency, and privatizing its energy activities and the system of national laboratories. All three think tank witnesses agreed that the federal government should get out of energy policy and research. Taylor cited the Synfuels program, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, and the SSC as "fiscal fiascoes" that the department should not have been involved in. Although Rezendes described a recent GAO query of energy experts which concluded that DOE should focus more on its core missions such as energy policy and energy R&D, the other witnesses found fault with GAO's choice of experts. Asked whether DOE and its labs have a reason for existence, Rezendes replied that "it depends on what you want to achieve." Noting that most of DOE's functions would be continued elsewhere in the public sector or by industry, he questioned, "What's the best...configuration" to achieve them? He added that closing or moving programs could increase short-term costs. Rep. Frank Riggs (R-CA), a new Member of Congress, asked whether he could take it as a "rule of thumb" that the government should not be in the R&D business. Rep. Jim Chapman (D-TX), a veteran subcommittee member, disagreed, using the SSC as an example. Stating that he believed the intended physics research should be performed, Chapman argued that he could "not imagine private industry undertaking that effort." Hodge countered that the vacuum left if government backed out of funding research would be filled by industries eager to go into partnerships with universities. Rezendes reasoned that there might more of a role for government in funding basic research, such as high energy physics, while possibly less of a role in applied areas such as energy R&D. He also pointed out the need for a federal role in the nuclear weapons research carried out at the national labs. Chapman charged that going to war in the Persian Gulf to protect oil reserves "puts a different spin" on the federal role in energy supply R&D, making it partly a national security issue. Closing the hearing, Chairman Myers agreed that the nation would not "get advanced physics if we relied on industry," unless the tax structure were changed to provide incentives. He added that the national labs are doing some research "we absolutely have to have." "We have to listen to everyone," he cautioned. It is worth noting that as the Energy Department is downsized, so is the subcommittee's jurisdiction. Chairman of the full House Appropriations Committee, Bob Livingston (R-LA), announced yesterday that he expects to save $35 to $40 billion between recissions to the fiscal 1995 budget and cuts from the projected 1996 budget. However, he noted that cuts to the current year budget would have to be "modest" to avoid the President's veto. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Jan 25 18:07:58 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27068; Wed, 25 Jan 95 18:07:56 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15849; 25 Jan 95 18:07 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05195; Wed, 25 Jan 95 15:05:10 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08671; Wed, 25 Jan 1995 15:27:57 -0700 Message-Id: <9501252227.AA08671@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 15:27:56 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR Subject: NASA Press Release on Return of El Nino Author: "Morris L. Aizenman 703-306-1820 Fax:703-306-0525" at NOTE Date: 1/24/95 9:43 PM Brian Dunbar Headquarters, Washington, DC January 24, 1995 (Phone: 202/358-0873) Mary Hardin Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (Phone: 818/354-5011) RELEASE: 95-7 TOPEX/POSEIDON CONFIRMS EL NINO IS BACK AND STRONGER THAN IN 1993 The El Nino phenomenon is back and is getting stronger, according to scientists studying data from the ocean- observing TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite. El Nino is a climatic event that can bring devastating weather to several parts of the world, including the recent heavy rains and flooding in California, and the warmer than normal winter in the eastern United States. "The satellite has observed high sea-surface elevation, which reflects an excessive amount of unusually warm water in the upper ocean," said Dr. Lee-Lveng Fu, JPL TOPEX/POSEIDON project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. "The associated excess of heat creates high sea-surface temperatures, which affect the weather worldwide by heating the atmosphere and altering the atmospheric jet streams." Jet streams are high-level winds, five to ten miles above the Earth's surface, created when warm and cold air masses meet. Shifts in the location of jet streams change temperatures and precipitation zones at the surface. El Nino begins when the westward trade winds weaken and a large warm water mass, called a Kelvin wave, is allowed to move eastward along the equator in the Pacific Ocean. Data from the radar altimeter onboard TOPEX/POSEIDON, recorded from October through December 1994, reveal a new Kelvin wave moving toward the western coast of South America. "This wave is currently occupying most of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It will take another month or two before the wave disperses. Compared to the El Nino condition of the winter of 1992-93, the present one appears somewhat stronger and might have stronger and longer lasting effects," Fu said. TOPEX/POSEIDON, a joint program of NASA and the Centre Nationale d'Etudes Spatiales, the French space agency, uses a radar altimeter to precisely measure sea-surface height. Scientists use the TOPEX/POSEIDON data to produce global maps of ocean circulation. Launched Aug. 10, 1992, the satellite has completed two and a half years of its three- year prime mission and has provided oceanographers with unprecedented global sea level measurements that are accurate to better than 2 inches (5 centimeters). "The global sea-surface elevation information provided by TOPEX/POSEIDON is unique because it is related to the amount of heat stored in the upper ocean, which is important for long-range weather forecasting. The speed and direction of ocean currents also can be determined from the elevation information, providing another piece of critical information about the ocean, which is the key to climate change," Fu continued. TOPEX/POSEIDON is part of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, a coordinated, long-term research program to study the Earth's global environment. TOPEX/POSEIDON's sea- surface height data are essential to understanding the role oceans play in regulating global climate, one of the least understood areas of climate research. TOPEX/POSEIDON will provide the first comprehensive, consistent measurements of the circulations of the ocean. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory manages the TOPEX/POSEIDON mission for NASA. -end- From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Jan 25 19:27:30 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27265; Wed, 25 Jan 95 19:27:24 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04835; 25 Jan 95 19:27 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05830; Wed, 25 Jan 95 16:28:15 PST Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 16:28:15 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Plant Landscape Data Files (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORf > RE: PLANT LANDSCAPE DATA FILES > > . . . After getting several replies from others to a > message to Richard Inouye, I realise that I need to > put out this information for general perusal. Below is > the list of data sets that I have available for general > distribution. This list is somewhat shorter than the list of all > data sets analysed in the, as yet unpublished, manuscript because > several people kindly lent me their data files but kept control > of them. However, do NOT ask for a copy of the manuscript at > this time. We are in the process of revising it and, given the > press of other duties, it will likely be a month before I can > send it out. I will attempt to be prompt on requests for data > files, but make no promises. As they say, you get what you pay > for, and all of this is ABSOLUTELY FREE!! > > To request actual data files, please send me blank diskettes; > high density 3 1/2" are best if you can handle them, these > suckers are BIG! One of these days I will figure out how to > compress them and store them on the mainframe for access by > anonymous ftp; until then we will have to be content with snail- > mail :-(. The data come in two formats. The first is complete > but messy; it contains species names, extraneous site information > when available, etc. The second is stripped and ready to go; it > contains just the actual matrix plus site IDs (see below for > details). Be sure to specify which you want. > > Samuel Scheiner > Department of Biological Sciences > Northern Illinois University > DeKalb, IL 60115 USA > Tel: (815) 753-7847 > FAX: (815) 753-0461 > E-mail: T80SMS1@NIU.BITNET > > _________________________________________________________________ > > LIST OF VASCULAR PLANT SURVEYS IN DIFFERENT WORLD BIOMES > > # OF # OF > FILE NAME CODE DT FT BIOME CONT LOCATION SITES SP. > > Akagera.dat 77 A F Savanna Africa 80 209 > Augrabi.dat 37 R F Warm desert Africa SA 76 152 > Egypdes.dat 16 P F Warm desert Africa Egypt 72 125 > Erkwit.dat 20 P F Warm desert Africa Sudan 44 126 > Gheast.dat 30b P F Tropical rainforest Africa Ghana 85 567 > Ghwest.dat 30a P F Tropical rainforest Africa Ghana 70 595 > Kalahaa.dat 56a R F Warm desert Africa Kalahari 74 191 > Kalahab.dat 56b R F Warm desert Africa Kalahari 44 173 > Mvuazi.dat 75 A F Savanna Africa 65 202 > Orange.dat 63b R F Scrubland Africa SA 78 215 > Redseac.dat 22 R F Warm desert Africa Egypt 75 66 > Rwanda.dat 87 A F Temperate rainforest Africa Rwanda 42 188 > Salamto.dat 66 R F Savanna Africa 42 416 > Tablemou.dat 63a R F Temp everg broadl for Africa SA 105 118 > Karakoa.dat 61a R F Tundra alpine Asia 66 161 > Karakob.dat 61b R F Tundra alpine Asia 39 168 > Lakeipe3.dat 2 R F Wetland Asia New Guinea 91 116 > Lakeipe.dat 1 R F Temp rainfor/grassl Asia New Guinea 19 130 > Lamao.dat 43 P F Trop.-seasonal forest Asia Philippine 37 311 > Ngaria.dat 82a R F Cold des/scrub/steppe Asia Tibet 97 92 > Sovpol.dat 23 R F Tundra arctic Asia Russia 57 20 > Urals.dat 55 P N Deciduous forest Asia Russia 110 256 > Wilhela.dat 80a R F Rainforest (alpine) Asia New Guinea 33 166 > Wilhelb.dat 80b R F Grassland (alpine) Asia New Guinea 39 119 > Wilhelc.dat 80c R F Wetlands (alpine) Asia New Guinea 20 68 > Wilheld.dat 80d R F Scrubland (alpine) Asia New Guinea 37 126 > Wilhele.dat 80e R F Alpine tundra Asia New Guinea 40 78 > Eneabba.dat 5 P F Scrubland Aust 31 347 > Queensla.dat 24a P F Tropical rainforest Aust 82 662 > Queenslb.dat 24b P F Tropical rainforest Aust 64 553 > Sanorque.dat 60 A F Savanna Aust 67 317 > Tidbinbi.dat 89 R F Temp everg broadl for Aust 81 144 > Westaus.dat 78 P F Scrubland Aust 64 560 > Westhead.dat 28 P U Scrubland/woodland Aust 30 92 > Crtr2.dat 10 P U Subtropical forest CA Costa Rica 44 616 > Baza.dat 85 R F Temp everg broadl for Europe Spain 112 242 > Cantac.dat 86c R F Deciduous for,scrubl Europe Spain 84 339 > Carnedd.dat 17 R U Scrub/grassland/bogs Europe Wales 42 77 > Iceland.dat 3 A U Tundra subarctic Europe Iceland 68 76 > Jura.dat 59 R F Tundra alpine Europe 32 131 > Majella.dat 64 R F Tundra alpine Europe Italy 61 114 > Medfores.dat 21 R N Evergr. broadl. for. Europe Italy 40 64 > Murcia.dat 91 R N Scrubland Europe Spain 128 130 > Olympe.dat 57 R F Tundra alpine, subalp Europe Greece 111 371 > Pardo.dat 84 R F Temp everg broadl for Europe Spain 106 233 > Silver.dat 19 R N Wetland Europe Scotland 37 28 > Weinvie.dat 71 R F Grassland Europe Austria 61 226 > Cumberl.dat 34 P F Deciduous forest NA Tenn. 34 266 > Devon.dat 83 A F Tundra arctic NA Canada 20 34 > Fortrel.dat 13 A F Bor forest/arc tundra NA Canada 61 126 > Hawley.dat 40 P F Wetland & boreal for NA Canada 27 117 > Hemloca.dat 32a R F Boreal subalp. forest NA 40 76 > Hemlocb.dat 32b R F Boreal subalp. forest NA 62 99 > Indian.dat 65 R F Tundra alpine NA Colorado 113 263 > Islandb.dat 51 A F Scrubland (seashore) NA NJ 62 61 > Jampeak.dat 35 R F Tundra alpine NA Colorado 20 112 > Mich.dat 6 P N Con/decid forest NA Michigan 47 483 > Nc.dat 7 P U Deciduous forest NA NC 33 237 > Nwalask.dat 9 R F Tundra arctic NA Alaska 80 69 > Orcasc.dat 81 A F Coniferous forest NA Oregon 56 188 > Oregon.dat 47 A F Conif-decid. forest NA Oregon 86 117 > Redlake 4 R U Wetland NA MN 42 119 > Roanmou.dat 36 A F Boreal alpine forest NA GA 21 127 > Rockyfla.dat 95 A F Prairie NA Colorado 32 184 > Rockym.dat 79 R F Tundra alpine NA Colorado 56 177 > Rocmtnat.dat 50 R F Conif alpine forest NA Colorado 101 426 > Sangre.dat 53 R F Conif alpine forest NA Colorado 129 452 > Siskiyo.dat 49 A U Conif-decid. forest NA Oregon 30 222 > Umiatal.dat 11 A U Tundra arctic NA Alaska 51 85 > Wetval.dat 54 R F Conif alpine forest NA Colorado 93 442 > Isabela.dat 27b P F Se trop scrub/egf/df SA Galapagos 129 239 > Santacr.dat 27a P F Se trop scrub/egf/df SA Galapagos 122 279 > Savper.dat 73 R F Grassland, savanna SA Peru 41 84 > Valdiv.dat 8 A F Temp rainfor/dec for SA Chile 21 113 > > Key to columns: > CODE = Data set file number > DT = Data type -- P = p/a, R = ranks, A = abundance > FT = Site ID format type -- > N = no IDs, U = unformatted, F = formatted > _________________________________________________________________ > > DATA FILE FORMAT > > Q R (Q = # OF SITES, R = # OF SPECIES) > OPTIONAL SITE ID VECTOR > Sites can be either > (1) Free-format numbers in the form of intergers > from 0 to 9999 or real numbers from 0 to 99 > of the form ##.#, #.##, or .### > or > (2) Fixed-format consisting of 4-character wide fields, > either numbers or letters, with 1 space between fields, > 12 fields per line. The first field begins in column 1. > The characters must be left-justified within fields. > DATA MATRIX > (The data matrix consists of sites (columns) by > species (rows). Entries can by any real or > integer numbers.) > > EXAMPLE: > 7 10 > 13.2 A4.0 ABCD 29 31F G2.2 4.28 > 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 > 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 > 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 > 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 > 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 > 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 > 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 > 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 > > From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Jan 25 19:35:55 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27294; Wed, 25 Jan 95 19:35:53 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06475; 25 Jan 95 19:35 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05860; Wed, 25 Jan 95 16:37:10 PST Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 16:37:10 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: ITEX Meeting Announcement (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, arc@lternet.washington.edu, bnz@lternet.washington.edu, nwt@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 23 January 1995 6th International Tundra Experiment (ITEX) Workshop 7-11 April 1995 University of Ottawa Ottawa, Canada Dear ITEXers, This long message contains the registration information for the 6th ITEX Workshop. The e-mail form should be printed and copied to colleagues you know who are not on the ITEX e-mail list, or who would be interested in attending. The Department of Geography at the University of Ottawa will be our host for the meeting. Please ensure money orders are made out to the correct address. Given recent money market activity, most of the international participants will find Canadian exchange rates quite favourable! There is not much time, of course, before the meeting; however, we will still aim to publish many of the short-term response papers in Arctic and Alpine Research. The journal issue could be divided into species sections, where site-specific papers would appear, and a synthetic paper comparing responses would be written jointly among the contributors for each section. Discussions among the contributors for each section will take place at the meeting to determine how best to coordinate the synthesis of information for each species, or group of species. I will be contacting potential species coordinators over the next week or two to help lead these discussions in Ottawa. Please note that the registration form calls for titles of papers, only. A request for abstracts will follow in the next two weeks. A second mailing will include more information about Ottawa; however, we have arranged for the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies to help with requests for accommodation and general information. Note the address in the section on Accommodation Information. ITEX is maturing into an exemplary network for collaborative research. The results from the 6th Workshop will solidify this development. Here's to a very successful meeting! Dr Greg Henry, Dept of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z2. (e-mail: Greg.Henry@mtsg.ubc.ca) Dr Antoni Lewkowicz, Dept of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada K1N 6N5. (e-mail: alewkowi@acadvm1.uottawa.ca) 6th INTERNATIONAL TUNDRA EXPERIMENT (ITEX) WORKSHOP 7-11 April 1995 University of Ottawa Ottawa, Canada Theme: Circumpolar Comparisons The International Tundra Experiment (ITEX) was established in late 1990 to investigate responses of important circumpolar vascular plant species to predicted climate change. The group of tundra scientists at the inaugural meeting agreed to conduct comparable field experiments and measurements in circumpolar tundra sites. The four international workshops held since its inception were largely devoted to establishing and refining the experimental and measurement protocols. At the last ITEX Workshop in St. Petersburg, Russia, it was agreed to begin to expand ITEX-related research to include alpine tundra sites, and to include measurements of other biophysical parameters, such as effects on bryophytes, active layer depth, and nutrient dynamics. Research has been conducted at some ITEX sites since 1992; hence, the 6th ITEX Workshop will focus on comparing the short-term responses of the common vascular plants throughout the arctic tundra biome to natural variations and experimental manipulations of climate. To this end, we encourage ITEX participants to collaborate on comparative papers for each of the major vascular plant species (see below). However, we invite papers and posters on any aspect of the responses of tundra ecosystems to climate. Publication of Papers As mentioned in the Workshop Announcement in November, we are hoping to publish a number of papers in a special issue or section of Arctic and Alpine Research. If you wish to have your paper considered for publication, please bring a draft to the meeting. A deadline for final submission will be determined at the meeting. We envision species sections in the journal, with a combination of site-specific and synthetic papers. Coordination for each species section will be discussed at the meeting. Please indicate on the Registration Form if you intend to submit a manuscript for publication, and consult the "Instructions for Authors" in recent issues of the journal. Sponsors Ecological Monitoring Coordination Office, Environment Canada Dept of Geography, University of British Columbia Dept of Geography, University of Ottawa Organizers Dr Greg Henry, Dept of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z2. (e-mail: Greg.Henry@mtsg.ubc.ca) Dr Antoni Lewkowicz, Dept of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada K1N 6N5. (e-mail: alewkowi@acadvm1.uottawa.ca) 6th ITEX WORKSHOP 7-11 April 1995 University of Ottawa Ottawa, Canada REGISTRATION FORM Name:___________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ phone: fax: e-mail: I wish to present a paper ____ and/or poster ____ entitled: _________________________________________________________________ I wish to have my paper considered for publication in the special ITEX collection planned for Arctic and Alpine Research _____ (yes) ______ (no) A call for abstracts will follow in the next couple of weeks. REGISTRATION FEES Before 1 March 1995 - $165.00 CDN (120. US$) After 1 March 1995 - $180.00 CDN (130. US$) Please pay by international money order in Canadian or US funds. Please make money orders payble to "University of Ottawa (ITEX)." Fees will cover coffee breaks, lunches and the banquet dinner. Please send the registration form and payment to: 6th ITEX Workshop, c/o Dr. A. Lewkowicz, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5 Canada Phone: 613-564-2395; Fax: 613-564-3304; e-mail: alewkowi@acadvm1.uottawa.ca 6th ITEX WORKSHOP ACCOMMODATION INFORMATION We have arranged for special rates from three hotels and a hostel within walking distance of the University of Ottawa. Please make your own accommodation arrangements, and be sure to mention you are coming for the ITEX Workshop. However, if you need assistance with these arrangements, you may contact Roberta Lloyd, Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies, 17 York St., Ottawa, Canada K1N 9J6. Phone: 613-562-0515; Fax: 613-562-0533. THE CHATEAU LAURIER 1 Rideau Street, Ottawa, K1N 8S7 Canada Phone: 613-241-1414 Fax: 613-562-7033 $109/night single or double occupancy. 10 rooms held. Please book by 7 March. One of Canada's grand "railway" hotels. Pool and fitness facilities on site. NOVOTEL 33 Nicholas Street, Ottawa, K1N 9M7 Canada Phone: 613-230-3033 Fax: 613-230-7865 $82/night single, $92 double occupancy. 30 rooms held. Please book by 7 March. The closest hotel, with pool and fitness facilities. QUALITY HOTEL 290 Rideau Street, Ottawa, K1N 5Y3 Canada Phone: 613-789-7511 Fax: 613-789-2434 $64/night. 40 rooms with queen-sized beds + pull-out love seats are held. Please book by 10 March, and use the Ottawa phone and fax numbers. This hotel does not have pool or fitness facilities. OTTAWA INTERNATIONAL HOSTEL 75 Nicholas Street, Ottawa, K1N 7B9 Canada Phone: 613-235-2595; Fax: 613-569-2131 $14.70/night. ($4.00 extra for hearty breakfast) 20 beds booked (4-6 beds in each renovated cell). Please book by 7 March. This is a converted County Jail, with fully equipped kitchen. All prices are in Canadian dollars, and they do not include taxes of 15%. All of the hotels have parking at additional cost. GROUND TRANSPORTATION AT THE OTTAWA AIRPORT You can get to all of the hotels from the airport by shuttle bus. The Hostel is a 3 minute walk from Novotel, so take the bus there. The bus costs $8.50 one way, and leaves the airport every 30 minutes between 06:00 and 22:00. 6th ITEX WORKSHOP PRELIMINARY PROGRAM 7 April - Evening registration and reception ("Climate Warmer") at the Chateau Laurier Hotel (19:00 - 22:00, Renaissance Room) 8 April - Registration all day Welcome and introduction Reports from participating countries General Session: ITEX research papers + posters ITEX Banquet (Chateau Montebello) & the "ITEX Movie" starring Ulf Molau. 9 April - Morning: Comparison Papers: Variation in responses throughout the circumpolar north. Afternoon: sight-seeing in Canada's National Capital. (No formal field trips are planned). 10 April - General Session: ITEX research Special Sessions: Permafrost monitoring in ITEX Further Expansion of ITEX research: (nutrient dynamics, common garden experiments, controlled environment studies, microclimate, herbivory) Data Management and coordination in ITEX 11 April - Workshops and Discussion Groups The ITEX Manual - species attributes - measurement protocols for new parameters Data Management and Coordination Publication of papers in Arctic and Alpine Research Closing Remarks: End of Workshop (early afternoon) Steering Committee Meeting (late afternoon) From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Jan 25 19:48:18 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27312; Wed, 25 Jan 95 19:48:17 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08851; 25 Jan 95 19:48 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05896; Wed, 25 Jan 95 16:43:44 PST Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 16:43:44 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Return of El Nino - NASA Release To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmer@lternet.washington.edu, elnino@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Subject: NASA Press Release on Return of El Nino Author: "Morris L. Aizenman 703-306-1820 Fax:703-306-0525" at NOTE Date: 1/24/95 9:43 PM Brian Dunbar Headquarters, Washington, DC January 24, 1995 (Phone: 202/358-0873) Mary Hardin Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (Phone: 818/354-5011) RELEASE: 95-7 TOPEX/POSEIDON CONFIRMS EL NINO IS BACK AND STRONGER THAN IN 1993 The El Nino phenomenon is back and is getting stronger, according to scientists studying data from the ocean- observing TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite. El Nino is a climatic event that can bring devastating weather to several parts of the world, including the recent heavy rains and flooding in California, and the warmer than normal winter in the eastern United States. "The satellite has observed high sea-surface elevation, which reflects an excessive amount of unusually warm water in the upper ocean," said Dr. Lee-Lveng Fu, JPL TOPEX/POSEIDON project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. "The associated excess of heat creates high sea-surface temperatures, which affect the weather worldwide by heating the atmosphere and altering the atmospheric jet streams." Jet streams are high-level winds, five to ten miles above the Earth's surface, created when warm and cold air masses meet. Shifts in the location of jet streams change temperatures and precipitation zones at the surface. El Nino begins when the westward trade winds weaken and a large warm water mass, called a Kelvin wave, is allowed to move eastward along the equator in the Pacific Ocean. Data from the radar altimeter onboard TOPEX/POSEIDON, recorded from October through December 1994, reveal a new Kelvin wave moving toward the western coast of South America. "This wave is currently occupying most of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It will take another month or two before the wave disperses. Compared to the El Nino condition of the winter of 1992-93, the present one appears somewhat stronger and might have stronger and longer lasting effects," Fu said. TOPEX/POSEIDON, a joint program of NASA and the Centre Nationale d'Etudes Spatiales, the French space agency, uses a radar altimeter to precisely measure sea-surface height. Scientists use the TOPEX/POSEIDON data to produce global maps of ocean circulation. Launched Aug. 10, 1992, the satellite has completed two and a half years of its three- year prime mission and has provided oceanographers with unprecedented global sea level measurements that are accurate to better than 2 inches (5 centimeters). "The global sea-surface elevation information provided by TOPEX/POSEIDON is unique because it is related to the amount of heat stored in the upper ocean, which is important for long-range weather forecasting. The speed and direction of ocean currents also can be determined from the elevation information, providing another piece of critical information about the ocean, which is the key to climate change," Fu continued. TOPEX/POSEIDON is part of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, a coordinated, long-term research program to study the Earth's global environment. TOPEX/POSEIDON's sea- surface height data are essential to understanding the role oceans play in regulating global climate, one of the least understood areas of climate research. TOPEX/POSEIDON will provide the first comprehensive, consistent measurements of the circulations of the ocean. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory manages the TOPEX/POSEIDON mission for NASA. -end- From adub@lternet.edu Tue Jan 31 11:52:31 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14414; Tue, 31 Jan 95 11:52:29 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12764; 31 Jan 95 11:52 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18037; Tue, 31 Jan 95 08:27:34 PST Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 08:27:33 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: CALL FOR NOMINATIONS (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 05:59:09 -0800 (PST) From: Jerry Franklin ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 11:37:36 PST From: Sona MacMillan To: allceas@ncgia.ncgia.ucsb.edu Cc: murdoch@lifesci.ucsb.edu Subject: CALL FOR NOMINATIONS Dear Colleagues: We haven't received quite as many nominations to the Scientific Advisory Board of the NSF Center for Environmental Analysis and Synthesis as we had hoped. Therefore, we are reissuing the Call for any of you who have not had an opportunity to suggest members. The deadline has been extended to February 1. Bill Murdoch Principal Investigator CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR CEAS SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD The National Science Foundation is in the process of establishing the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (CEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) is being formed. It will advise the Director on the scientific direction of the Center, establishing Center programs and selecting among proposals for working groups, workshops, postdoctoral fellows and visitors to the Center. The SAB will also select a new director in the first year. Advisory Board members are expected to be scientists active in research in ecology or related environmental science, with outstanding research records, tolerance of and appreciation for approaches other than their own, and an ability to work with others to ensure that Center programs are of the highest quality and representative of the range of scientific endeavors in ecology and related environmental sciences. Members are expected to meet annually and to submit an annual report to NSF. Appointments will be for three-year terms except in the first year, when some will be for shorter periods to allow one-third of the Board to be replaced each year. Please e-mail nominations, with brief supporting documentation outlining the nominee's key attributes, to ceas@ceas.ncgia.ucsb.edu, or mail them to William W. Murdoch, Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Nominations are due in Santa Barbara by January 20, 1995. To ensure broad participation, this call is being sent to all who took part in the October 1992 and June 1993 planning meetings, to those who served on the NSF Center panel, to members of the ESA Executive Committee, and to Host Participants. Please feel free to invite other scientists to submit nominations. ************************************************ * Sona MacMillan E-Mail macmilla@lifesci.lscf.ucsb.edu * Department of Biology * University of California Phone (805) 893-7670 * Santa Barbara FAX (805) 893-3777 *************** only in office in the morning *************** From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Jan 30 17:51:32 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11929; Mon, 30 Jan 95 17:51:31 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01393; 30 Jan 95 17:51 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12270; Mon, 30 Jan 95 14:51:13 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26010; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 15:49:19 -0700 Message-Id: <9501302249.AA26010@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 15:49:18 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF Director's talk on basic/applied research Status: OR This may be of interest regarding past pressure on NSF to do applied research and new pressure to go back to basic research. jim Subject: Lane talk ABSTRACT OF NEAL LANE SPEECH Dr. Lane addressed the Universities Research Association Annual Meeting on January 27, 1995. The URA is a consortium of 80 universities. They have the management contract for Fermi Laboratory in Illinois and also managed the Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory until the Congress eliminated funding for the SSC. Dr. Lane discussed in brief the changing environment for research in our universities. He then proposed a new role for NSF, in addition to its traditional institutional role. He suggested that NSF, as America's comprehensive national institution for the promotion of science in all fields, can act as a "common ground" for posing key questions of importance to the research community -- questions often avoided by the community. These are questions without ready answers but which could benefit from a public dialogue in the research community. The speech posed questions in two main areas -- Why is there such a fractious debate in the scientific community about basic versus applied research? and Why has a separation emerged between teaching and research on university campuses? Each question, despite its initial simplicity, has broad implications beyond individual campuses and individual investigators. The queries extend into issues of public policy and debate. Nevertheless, these are the questions most often "unasked." The speech was an attempt to put the "unasked" questions on the table in a non-dogmatic framework to encourage the research community to own and address the nature and root of their divisiveness. In the question and answer period afterward, the comments on teaching and research elicited evocative comments. **** For More information on how to obtain a copy of this speech, please contact Patricia Garfinkel on (703) 306-1070.**** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Jan 27 14:14:21 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04589; Fri, 27 Jan 95 14:14:20 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12893; 27 Jan 95 14:14 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18817; Fri, 27 Jan 95 11:12:40 PST Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 11:12:40 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: RE: GIS/Environment/Public Participation (fwd) To: gStought@lternet.washington.edu, GIS@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O From: Jerry Harrison To: Multiple recipients of list In message Thu, 26 Jan 1995 14:00:08 +0600, SSd@bhima.demon.co.uk writes: > My research focusses on the use of GIS as a real-time, interactive > interface for public participation on environmental issues. The WCMC URL > is an example that comes very close to what I am searching for. I am > looking to compile a list of international projects to then generate a > short list for case studies. > > I would be most appreciative if any of you could pass on to me the contact > details of any project you know of where GIS is the real-time, interactive > interface for public inquiry on environmental issues. Thank you for your > time and consideration. The Biodiversity Map Library was developed by WCMC as a tool to provide non-experts with GIS overlays of a wide variety of information relating to the conservation of biological diversity. In fact we developed the system in collaboration with British Petroleum with the express aim of it being used to support both exploration and shipping components in accessing environmental information. The Biodiversity Map Library is developed in ARC/INFO, and we have received significant support from ESRI in developing the system. Test copies have been located in a number of international organizations, including the World Bank, UNEP and the Centre for International Forestry Research. We are still developing the system, and I would be happy to provide further details to any "correspondent" interested. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jeremy Harrison Head of Information Services Tel: +44 (0)1223 277314 World Conservation Monitoring Centre Fax: +44 (0)1223 277136 219 Huntingdon Road Email: Jerry.Harrison@wcmc.org.uk Cambridge CB3 0DL WWW: http://www.wcmc.org.uk United Kingdom Anonymous FTP: ftp.wcmc.org.uk +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Jan 30 11:43:43 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10118; Mon, 30 Jan 95 11:43:40 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20035; 30 Jan 95 11:43 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06128; Mon, 30 Jan 95 08:41:34 PST Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 08:41:33 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Ecologist Job Opening in Southern Appalachians (fwd) To: jobs@lternet.washington.edu, pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, erg@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Subject: Ecologist Job Opening in Southern Appalachians (fwd) The following announcement is forwarded on behalf of Rene Voss by request: Please circulate freely. ***************************************************************** Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition Temporary address: 201 West Main Street, Suite 14 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (804) 977-4090 ~ FAX (804) 977-1483 * PLEASE POST * JOB ANNOUNCEMENT JANUARY 1995 IMMEDIATE OPENING * ECOLOGIST * SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN FOREST PROTECTION CAMPAIGN Asheville, NC A coalition of the Southeast's leading forest protection advocates has embarked on a four-year campaign to protect the Southern Appalachian national forests. The multi-faceted campaign will focus on the protection of the native biological diversity of the national forests in the Southern Appalachians and the related benefits for recreation, local economies, fisheries and wildlife, visual beauty, and clean water. The campaign office, located in Asheville, will serve the entire six- state region. ECOLOGIST'S RESPONSIBILITIES: Obtain and integrate a variety of biological data for analysis of viability of biological species in the Southern Appalachians. Coordinate with federal and state agencies to obtain data and influence policies. Develop a proposal for protection and recovery of biological diversity in the region. Work with volunteers around the region to ground truth data, challenge ecologically destructive project plans, and identify areas needing protection. Review forest plans. Interpret scientific information for public presentation and outreach. Work closely with other campaign staff. QUALIFICATIONS: Graduate degree in ecology, conservation biology, or related field strongly preferred. Knowledge of the ecology and biology of the Southern Appalachians and experience with forest protection and biological diversity issues. Strong written and oral communication skills including public speaking and word processing skills. Ability to communicate effectively with technical and non-technical audiences. Experience with geographicinformation systems. Experience in public policy analysis including knowledge of environmental laws and regulations. Strong personal commitment to environmental and forest protection. SALARY: Up to $35,000 plus benefits. Commensurate with experience. APPLICATION PROCEDURE: Send a letter of application, resume, and at least three references as soon as possible to Joan Willey, Sierra Club Regional Office, 69 Franklin Street, 2nd Floor, Annapolis, Maryland 21401. All applications must be in writing. Sierra Club is an equal employment opportunity employer committed to workforce diversity. M/F/H/V. See attached summary of the Southern Appalachian Forest Protection Campaign. [sorry, didn't come with the message...] Members of the Coalition: Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Southern Environmental Law Center, Chattooga Watershed Coalition, Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Association of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Cherokee Forest Voices, Citizens Task Force on National Forest Management, Bankhead Monitor From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Jan 30 17:16:00 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11774; Mon, 30 Jan 95 17:15:58 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17298; 30 Jan 95 17:15 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11226; Mon, 30 Jan 95 14:10:36 PST Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 14:10:36 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Flood Watch - NASA EOCAP To: hydro@lternet.washington.edu, GIS@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 16:21:38 est From: Dennis Reinhardt Subject: RE: GIS/Environment/Public Participation (fwd) To: Jerry Harrison and multiple recipients of BENE listserver From: Dennis Reinhardt (PI on Flood Watch - NASA EOCAP) Re: Request for GIS examples of real-time systems For your information, EarthSat, as a contractor to NASA and FEMA, is working on a model for flood alert and mitigation in which we are experimenting with simulated real-time (ultimately actual real-time) data capture of hydrological elements (i.e., river stage, vol by Internet data transfer -gaging stations in California, for example, are linked to the net by telemetry). Our model is essentially a complex of "terrain" layers (i.e., DEMs for topo, land use/land cover, soil type and antecedent soil moisture, runoff coefficients, impervious survace coverage, etc.), precipitation inputs via NEXRAD (radar) at 2 km resolution (real-time), and surficial hydrology (see above). We intend to build a low-cost flood alert system which can double as a mitigation guide (policies related to displacing inappropriate uses out of flood plains, etc.). From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Jan 30 17:45:26 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11914; Mon, 30 Jan 95 17:45:16 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29233; 30 Jan 95 17:45 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12091; Mon, 30 Jan 95 14:39:30 PST Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 14:39:30 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: NBS -- Twenty FAQs (about 250 lines) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, lmer@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O [Additional information about NBS may be found, for those with Worldwide Web (WWW) access, at the NBS server, URL http://www.its.nbs.gov/nbs/ . Or try: U.S. Department of the Interior National Biological Service Office of Public Affairs 1849 C Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20240 1-202-482-3048 VOICE 1-202-208-6445 FAX] [Transcribed by Steve Young from NBS paper fact sheet and posted to the multiple subscribers of the BENE listserver. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Biological Service (NBS) 10 January 1995 The Twenty Most Frequently Asked Questions About NBS 1. WHAT IS THE NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SERVICE? The National Biological Service is the Department of Interior's newest bureau, created in November, 1993, by consolidating some of the biological research, inventory and monitoring, and information transfer programs of seven Interior bureaus: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Office of Surface Mining. The mission of the NBS is to work with others to provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support the sound management and conservation of our Nation's biological resources. 2. WHY DID YOU CHANGE YOUR NAME? The name, "the National Biological Service" more accurately reflects the mission and function of this new agency than the National Biological "Survey." Inventory and monitoring (i.e. "survey") is an important, but small part (less than 15%) of what the NBS does. Overall, the NBS provides service to the Department of the Interior and others in the form of reliable scientific research, information and technology transfer. 3. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT NBS's REAL MISSION IS TO FIND NEW LISTINGS FOR THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST? No, in fact the mission of NBS is exactly the opposite: our aim through our status and trends research is to identify future potential problems in time to take action to prevent species from becoming endangered. As Secretary Babbitt says, we want to avoid future "environmental train wrecks." We intend to identify declining species and troubled ecosystems before they require protection under the Act. Also, by studying and inventorying populations of "candidate" species--those pegged for possible addition to the Endangered Species listing process--we may be able to provide the additional information needed to actually _avoid_ the listing of some of these species. 4. DOES NBS HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE HOW I CAN USE MY LAND? NBS is a non-regulatory, non-managerial and non-advocacy science agency. Our aim is to make the best possible scientific information available to resource managers, landowners, and the public. We will not make recommendations. Our scientists and biologists will provide unbiased, factual scientific information to Federal agencies, State, and non-profit research institutions, landowners, businesses, industry and private citizens. Regulatory and management decisions will be made elsewhere in the government and in the private sector. 5. WHO WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION YOU PULL TOGETHER? NBS research and information will be in the public domain, and will be made available to anyone who needs it. It will be available through the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), accessible through the Internet. The Interior Department's experience with the national wetlands inventory maps has been that builders and developers--business and industry--are the greatest users of that information. We anticipate that NBS data will be as useful for landowner management decisions as it is for conservation purposes. Anybody may challenge any information the NBS has. We are a credible scientific organization using peer-review to affirm the accuracy of our methods and data. 6. WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM TO PAY FOR NBS? WHO PAYS YOU? AND HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU HAVE? Our budget of $167 million (FY 1994) is based on funds originally transferred into NBS from the seven bureaus at Interior. Almost all of our 1,950 positions have come from the same seven bureaus. In addition to headquarters in Washington, we will have 4 Regional Offices, 16 Science Centers, 60 Cooperative Research Units, and 88 field stations. 7. DO YOU USE VOLUNTEERS TO COLLECT DATA? Volunteers assist only those authorized programs supporting the missions of bureaus that were parents of the NBS. In all cases the volunteers are carefully trained first, then supervised by a federal employee while they work. In addition, their data are quality-control checked by NBS supervisors. Volunteers must abide by the same rules, regulations, policies and laws as NBS employees. 8. WHAT IS THE NBS POLICY ABOUT COMING ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY TO DO YOUR STUDIES? When conducting studies on private property, NBS researchers comply with State and Tribal laws, including trespass and privacy laws. NBS researchers are required to obtain written permission from the landowner when conducting new surveys, not to trespass, and, at the landowner's request, to make the data available at no cost. 9. HAS LEGISLATION BEEN PASSED AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF THE NBS? The Secretary has full authority to reorganize the Department and create the NBS (Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1262). The NBS will continue to seek organic legislation to permanently establish the NBS. The House of Representatives passed H. R. 1845 in October 1993. In the meantime, both houses of Congress have effectively authorized NBS by appropriating the necessary monies to run the bureau. 10. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "AN NBS PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATES"? Secretary Babbitt invited all the governors and Tribal governments to join NBS in individually crafted partnerships to share biological data. Through these partnerships, NBS and States jointly determine the scope and urgency of projects, assess the level of technical assistance needed, and determine where this should come from. Several States have signed Memorandums of Understanding with the NBS to formalize such partnerships. Projects are underway in Arizona, California, Maryland, North Carolina, and Illinois that are enhancing the State and NBS capacity to jointly conduct research and computerize and communicate information. 11. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF NBS TO INDUSTRY? NBS welcomes partnerships with industry as well. In fact, NBS works in cooperation with many private corporations, including the International Paper Company to survey and study the Wherry's pitcher plant, the white-topped pitcher plant and the Henslow sparrow, and provide information which can be used to manage the company's Alabama timberland to ensure continuing vitality of harvests while conserving habitat critical to the survival of these species. In addition, NBS just signed an agreement with the Champion International Paper Company, to assist with a biological assessment of a 6700 acre tract of Champion owned land in Eastern Tennessee. 12. HOW DOES NBS BENEFIT INDUSTRY? This differs by industry sector, but to give you a few examples, we work with the agriculture and ranching industry on the problem of noxious weeds, wildlife and soil conservation techniques, integrated pest management, and have provided information in support of aquaculture. Potentially, the industry which may benefit the most from knowing where rare plants can be found is the pharmaceutical industry. New drugs are constantly being developed from both rare and common plants, in this country and elsewhere. 13. WHAT IS THE NATURE CONSERVANCY AGREEMENT? Secretary Babbitt signed an agreement with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in December 1993, to work cooperatively in a number of areas, particularly in sharing data collected over many years as part of the TNC's Heritage Program in the States. 14. WHERE ELSE DO YOU ANTICIPATE GETTING INFORMATION? We expect to exchange information with state fish and game offices, universities, research laboratories, individual researchers, and local libraries and museums. This information will be shared through a distributed data network, the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). 15. WHAT IS GAP ANALYSIS AND HOW MANY STATES HAVE IT? The GAP Analysis Project uses satellite imagery to map the distribution of vegetation communities, species distribution, and land use. GAP analysis will be underway or complete in 36 states during 1994. Maps are now being produced for publication in Arizona, California, Utah, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. 16. WHAT IS THE BREEDING BIRD SURVEY? The Breeding Bird Survey is a cooperative effort using over 2,000 skilled amateur and professional ornithologists to collect information on the North American bird population. This program was transferred to NBS from the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the data enables us to measure bird population changes. 17. WHAT IS A COOP UNIT? In thirty nine States the NBS has formal cooperative relationships with States and universities where by research, technical assistance and teaching projects beneficial to all partners are undertaken at the host university. 18. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE NBS SCIENCE COUNCIL? WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE POLICY BOARD? The Science Council will be made up of representatives from federal agencies, State agencies, professional societies and nongovernmental non-profit and research organizations. It will coordinate with entities outside of Interior and will offer suggestions about science trends and needs to NBS. The Policy Board consists of senior representatives from all Interior Bureaus. It offers guidance on research priorities for NBS so that data useful for resource managers can be obtained. 19. CAN YOU ASSURE ME THAT THE INFORMATION YOU GATHER WON'T BE USED BY SOME OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY TO TAKE MY PROPERTY OR REGULATE ME IN SOME OTHER WAY? The information we gather will be available to everyone: government officials and private citizens. We cannot guarantee that it won't be used in a regulatory decision. What we can guarantee is that the information will be accurate, timely and unbiased. Accurate and sufficient scientific information should produce fair decisions. 20. HOW CAN I, AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, ACCESS NBS DATA? NBS information is public information and in almost all cases, is available by request. (Limited exceptions exist that protect the interests of property owners and to protect sensitive species). In addition, information about a wide range of geographical areas and species will be available to you through NBS, which can help you locate and gain access to information in Federal, State, and private institutions. Much of this information will also be available through Internet. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Feb 1 10:47:17 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17548; Wed, 1 Feb 95 10:47:14 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11779; 1 Feb 95 10:47 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26919; Wed, 1 Feb 95 07:44:25 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA12305; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 08:42:31 -0700 Message-Id: <9502011542.AA12305@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 08:42:31 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Congress info Status: OR I will try to indicate the nature of the information in the subject header (for those of you who have a heavy delete key!). Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space FYI No. 15, January 31, 1995 Among Senate authorizing committees, one of the most important to the science community is the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Authorizing committees can approve, but not provide funds for, programs under their jurisdiction. Under Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and, prior to that, under then-Senator Al Gore (D-TN), the subcommittee considered numerous science and technology issues, including research on global warming, the space program, and the role of the federal government in funding basic research. The subcommittee's new chairman is Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT), who was elected to the Senate in 1988. Senator Larry Pressler (SD) is the chairman of the full commerce committee. Subcommittee roster: Republicans: Democrats: Conrad Burns (MT) John Rockefeller (WV) Larry Pressler (SD) John Kerry (MA) Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) Richard Bryan (NE) Ted Stevens (AK)* Byron Dorgan (ND)* Trent Lott (MI) *New member of subcommittee Burns is one of only three members of Montana's congressional delegation. He hails from Billings, Montana's largest city, a largely Republican area where the main industries are cattle and wheat. As a member of the commerce committee, Burns has been heavily involved in matters of telephone and cable regulation. Burns is also a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA/HUD/Independent Agencies, which provides funding for NSF and NASA. In his 1993 voting record, Burns voted 92 percent of the time along party lines, and with the President only 24 percent of the time. He received a score of 85 percent from the Conservative Coalition for his voting record. On major science-related votes, he consistently supported the space station from 1991 through 1994. Although he supported the SSC in 1992, he voted against it in 1993. Today, Burns's subcommittee held a hearing on the science and technology programs of the Department of Commerce. Testimony on the Clinton Administration's strategies for assisting industry was presented by Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, Undersecretary for Technology Policy Mary Good, NIST Director Arati Prabhakar, and Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere James Baker. Details of this hearing will be reported in a future FYI. ############### From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Feb 2 11:21:45 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21609; Thu, 2 Feb 95 11:21:43 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10741; 2 Feb 95 11:21 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06625; Thu, 2 Feb 95 08:18:33 PST Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 08:18:32 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: ESA Environmental Policy Update (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmer@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Via Jerry Franklin, originally forwarded by: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 14:57:55 -0500 From:NADINE@esa.org Environmental Policy Update, January 26 - February 1, 1995 Compiled by the Public Affairs Office of the Ecological Society of America. Source: Daily Environment Report, Bureau of National Affairs Inc., Washington, DC) - The Senate Republican Regulatory Relief Task Force announced Jan. 25 their list of "top ten worst case regulations" which they rank as their highest regulatory reform priorities. Among them are the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and wetlands programs. Task force members view regulations implemented under the E.S.A. as particularly burdensome. - Rep. George Miller (D-CA) introduced Jan. 27 the "Public Resources Deficit Reduction Act of 1995." The bill would require all federal resources--including minerals, timber, grazing leases and water, to be sold or leased at a fair market value. For example, timber sales would have to cover the costs associated with the sale, such as road construction costs. Miller, who is senior Democrat on the House Resources Committee, noted that, "...unwarranted subsidies not only cost taxpayers billions of dollars and promote poor resource management, but also create serious environmental problems that cost taxpayers additional billions of dollars to clean up." - Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman, John Chafee (R-RI) said Jan. 31 that he would support the creation of an administrative settlement process to address concerns of small landowners whose property values diminish as a result of federal regulation. Chafee expressed concern about two types of property rights bills currently pending in the Senate. One type would expand the definition of takings and empower citizens to seek judicial review of takings assessments if they disagree with the outcome. The other would require compensation for loss of property value. Both types go beyond the constitutional definition of takings, according to Chafee. Chafee noted, however, that there are instances when some property owners share a disproportionate share of the burden of federal regulations and that the federal government could do a better job of identifying the public interest in advance. "Too often....the decision on whether to conserve a public interest on a piece of land is not made until after a development interest has been asserted and a permit application is pending," said Chafee. - Senator John Chafee (R-RI) voiced reservations Jan. 31 about pending proposals regarding risk assessment, including a measure that would require the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator to certify that the benefits of each regulation justify the costs. Chafee cautions against such an approach noting that, "there are so many factors of such great complexity that come into play when weighing costs and benefits under environmental law that is virtually impossible to set out any general formula. - The first hearing on the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act's (HR 9) risk assessment and cost benefit analysis provisions held Jan. 31 before the House Science Committee, focused on the Environmental Protection Agency and risk assessment practices. Positions taken by witnesses included: - a common set of principles should govern the conduct of federal risk assessment - risk assessments should be mandatory for all rules that would have a significant impact on the economy - agencies should not acquire new staff or resources to conduct risk and cost-benefit analyses and instead "restructure" themselves. House Science Committee Minority Leader, Rep. George Brown (D-CA) expressed concern that HR 9 may be overly prescriptive, "telling scientists how to do science." Title III of HR 9 would mandate risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis for certain health, safety and environmental regulations and mandate peer review of the risk and economic analysis. The House Science Committee has primary jurisdiction for this title of the JCWEA. ================================================================== From adub@lternet.edu Thu Feb 2 14:30:36 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA22505; Thu, 2 Feb 95 14:30:35 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15548; 2 Feb 95 14:30 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08209; Thu, 2 Feb 95 11:26:51 PST Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 11:26:50 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener Subject: New Net Ofc travel agency To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI: The LTER Network Office has a new travel agent and will no longer be using Global Express. Please delete Global Express' phone number from your records, and replace it with Ambassador Seattle Travel (AST)'s numbers: 1-800-233-8263 or (206) 623-0484. As always, meeting notices will contain ticket order info, and your tickets will continue to be direct-billed to the Network Office. The change is the result of negotiations between the College of Forest Resources and local travel agents, and AST is looking forward to working with LTER. From jvc@lternet.washington.edu Fri Feb 3 18:23:56 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27269; Fri, 3 Feb 95 18:23:51 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11893; 3 Feb 95 18:23 EST Received: from time.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19293; Fri, 3 Feb 95 15:22:51 PST Received: by time.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17369; Fri, 3 Feb 95 15:19:44 PST Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 15:19:43 -0800 (PST) From: John Vande Castle Subject: Network Office Proposal (fwd) To: LTER Principal Investigators Cc: LTER Network Office Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear LTER Principal Investigators, We have had bad news regarding future funding for the LTER Network Office. A complete surprise to us, if not yourselves. As usual we will deal with it as best we can, however it will mean significant changes in exactly what we do over the next year. We have been asked to continue our ILTER efforts, which represents a serious chunk of our "allocated" money. Jerry and Jim and I will be discussing options and working up a 1 year budget. Jerry will be contacting you next week when he returns from travel. As of Feb 1, the Network Office has been operating without funding on a small carry-over buffer (we anticipate minor snafus) but also have impending expenses with upcomming CC meetings etc. We will work to get a new 1 year budget to NSF ASAP so as to minimize any interruption in Network Services. Jim and I decided to forward everything we know at this point... -jvc John Vande Castle, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) - Network Office Univ. of Washington, College of Forest Resources, AR-10, Seattle WA 98195 Phone: 206 543-6249 FAX: 206 543-7295 or 685-0790 Email:jvc@LTERnet.edu ---------- Forwarded message from Michael Allen---------- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 21:38:02 -0800 From: Edie Allen (909) 787-2123 To: jerry@lternet.edu, jvandecastle@lternet.edu Subject: Network Office Proposal Dear Jerry and John, I'm sorry to report this but the reviews and the budgets are now in. The program will be unable to recommend that your proposal be funded to continue the office at the University of Washington. You will receive the reviewer comments soon and we can discuss those details at that time. I will tell you that there is strong support for the network office for the LTER and what your group has achieved. The problems were the large budget, the lack of details regarding the budget, and the lack of specified support from the University of Washington including space and personnel. Because of the high degree of support for a network office, I will be preparing an announcement for an open competition for the network office. You certainly will be eligible to submit a proposal for that competition. This will be for a 6 year cooperative agreement. The large supplement also ran into a problem. However, I have arranged for an alternative route for providing bridging support. I will recommend a Creative Extension Award to your current project based on the exciting developments that you have made to make international connections. I have made contacts with approval at each major office along this route. In order to make this award, I need two items. First, I need a signed 1 year budget. My marching orders are explicit, this should not exceed last year's budget, $990,000. Second, I need a letter that states what you would do with the funds (a budget justification). Specifically, describe the international connectivity efforts that you are making and the international connectivity kit. I leave the remaining details to you. Along with this, I will be writing a justification for the need for this award and the creativity justification. I am in Southern California and out to the desert from now through most of the next week. You can best reach me via this e-mail address. I will be back in the office in Washington a week from Monday (Feb 13th). I would hope that you can get a draft budget and letter of justification back to me by then. I can then get the paperwork rolling to get this award to you. Feel free to fax information to Betsy Behrens during next week. Also, feel free to contact me here via e-mail and I'll respond as soon as possible. I am sorry that this has been dragged out and that we were unable to fund the proposal. I realize the difficulties that this will create and I certainly encourage a resubmission of your proposal for the open competition. You will receive some good suggestions to improve the proposal. I also wish to again reiterate my appreciation for your past contributions to the LTER program. In many ways, the outstanding reputation of the LTER program is due to your past efforts to create an interactive program rather than a large group of projects. Sincerely yours, Mike Allen PO, LTPEB From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Feb 4 18:43:19 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA29058; Sat, 4 Feb 95 18:43:17 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28755; 4 Feb 95 18:43 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24831; Sat, 4 Feb 95 15:43:39 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04153; Sat, 4 Feb 1995 16:41:44 -0700 Message-Id: <9502042341.AA04153@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sat, 4 Feb 95 16:41:44 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Congress information Status: OR Galvin Task Force Issues Report on DOE National Laboratories FYI No. 17, February 3, 1995 On February 1, the Task Force on Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories issued its much anticipated report. Chaired by Robert Galvin, the 23-member task force issued a 78-page report concluding ten months of intensive study. The report was presented to DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary at a meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. The Task Force expressed its conclusion about the missions of the laboratories early in the report: "One general observation of the Task Force is that the national laboratories, and the Department, appear to believe that they have the potential to serve an extraordinarily broad role in scientific investigation and technical research for the nation. The Task Force does not support this view. Rather, we see the laboratories as having clear areas of expertise, yet limited to their traditional mission areas of national security, energy, and environmental science and technology, as well as in the fields of fundamental science which underpin these missions and in basic science associated with high energy, nuclear, and condensed matter physics." The report continues, "the urgent requirement for these laboratories is to provide more disciplined focus on the new research needs within the traditional set of mission areas...." These missions are: national security, energy, environmental science and technology, fundamental science, and industrial technologies. A major conclusion of the report, discussed below, concerns the governance of the laboratories. Other findings revolved around issues that have long been raised about the labs. For example, while acknowledging industrial technologies as a mission, the report states, "Development of technologies for which private sector companies are the major beneficiary is not an appropriate mission for the national laboratories." It later continues, "Industrial competitiveness, broadly defined, has no place as a stand-alone mission of the laboratories, but rather should be regarded, and treated, as a derivative of their primary missions. The idea that the laboratories are, or could become, cornucopias of relevant technology for a broad range of industries is a myth." Concerning the laboratories' science-engineering role, the report concludes, "The Task Force is concerned about what appears to have been a significant decline in DOE funding for fundamental research over the past three years, with the prospect of still deeper cuts to follow." The report continues, "The Nation presently faces the challenge of finding an institutional substitute for the corporate central research laboratories. However, we do not think that the national laboratories provide a good institutional basis for a general solution." Early in the report, the Task Force states, "The Department should sustain and strengthen its support of fundamental science." While the Task Force generally reached consensus positions, it was "divided concerning a recommendation for the level of support needed in the area of fusion energy." The report did not recommend the closure of a specific laboratory, instead stating that comparative validation and independence from DOE would "force the elimination of redundancies and less than world-class capabilities." Finding that the "laboratories do not have sufficient focus or clarity of purpose," the Task Force recommends the creation of "Centers of Excellence" to institutionalize differentiation and specialization. Describing a "counterproductive federal system of operation" placing the laboratories' quality and effectiveness in "serious jeopardy," the Task Force concluded, "Government ownership and operation of these laboratories does not work well." Governmental domination of the laboratories continues to grow, significantly driven by congressional policy. As a remedy, the report recommends a "private sector style `corporatized' laboratory organization system." Not-for-profit corporation(s) would be governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the president. DOE would sponsor this work, with Congress determining broad mission funding levels. "An improvement of between 20 and 50 percent in the effectiveness of the laboratories themselves, on top of significant staff and overhead economies in the Department" is predicted. The report notes that the Task Force was split over whether nuclear weapons laboratories would be appropriate candidates for this governance. The report cautions that this new mechanism should not be used as a pretext to dismantle or disband the system, or to change the laboratories' focus from long-term, fundamental research to short-term "job shop" responsibilities. The Task Force "sees no compelling reason for DOD to manage the national security activities at the weapons laboratories." Secretary Hazel O'Leary agreed with most of the conclusions of the Task Force. Her largest area of disagreement concerned findings critical of the Environmental Management Program. Most of advisory board members expressed general agreement with the report, the major exception being former Congressman Butler Derrick. Regarding the recommendation to change the governance of the laboratories, he said, "This is not going to happen.... You're dreaming if you think Congress is going to give you $6 billion, cut you loose and say, `Do what you want.'" A period of public comment on this report ends on February 15. A full analysis and implementation plan will be sent to the National Science and Technology Council by March 7. That material will be included in a report to the president on DOE, Department of Defense, and NASA laboratories due on April 15. To obtain a copy of this report, access the "What's New" section of the Department of Energy's HomePage at http://www.doe.gov DOE can also mail you a copy; please call 202-586-7092, fax to 202-586-6279, or send an e-mail message to sean.mcdonald@hq.doe.gov ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Feb 4 18:48:34 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA29072; Sat, 4 Feb 95 18:48:32 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29466; 4 Feb 95 18:48 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24874; Sat, 4 Feb 95 15:46:06 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04180; Sat, 4 Feb 1995 16:44:12 -0700 Message-Id: <9502042344.AA04180@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sat, 4 Feb 95 16:44:12 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Congress schedule Status: OR 1995 Congressional Calendar FYI No. 19, February 3, 1995 The following is a tentative and partial calendar for the first session of the 104th Congress. Other significant dates are also included. January 4 Congress convenes February 6 President submits budget request to Congress February 17-21 Congress not in session March The customary start of various appropriations subcommittee hearings on the budget request March 17 House not in session April 8-30 House not in session April 14-30 Senate not in session Mid to late May The customary time when the House Appropriations Committee starts sending bills to the House floor. These bills provide the first approximation of the new budget. By law, the House must act first. May 27-June 4 House not in session July 1-9 House not in session August 5-September 6 House not in session October 1 Start of Fiscal Year 1996 (Target date to complete work on all appropriations bills.) ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Feb 4 21:38:00 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA29148; Sat, 4 Feb 95 21:37:58 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22424; 4 Feb 95 21:37 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25557; Sat, 4 Feb 95 18:37:24 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04879; Sat, 4 Feb 1995 19:35:30 -0700 Message-Id: <9502050235.AA04879@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sat, 4 Feb 95 19:35:30 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF 1996 budget Status: OR Please remember that Congress may change these numbers!! NSF FY 1996 BUDGET REQUEST TOTALS $3.36 BILLION Administration Continues to See NSF as an "Investment" National Science Foundation (NSF) Director Neal Lane today [February 6] announced that the Clinton Administration has proposed a fiscal year 1996 budget of $3.36 billion for NSF, a $96 million increase over fiscal year 1995. Characterizing the three percent increase as "good news in tight times," Lane said at a press conference today that he believes the NSF budget is viewed at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue as an essential part of the U.S. investment in research and education, an investment which "strengthens and secures our Nation's capability to excel in science and engineering." According to Lane, the overall increase for NSF reflects goals outlined by the Administration in its August 1994 report, "Science in the National Interest." That report stated that "America's future demands investment in our people, institutions, and ideas. Science is an essential part of this investment, an endless and sustainable resource with extraordinary dividends." Lane said that although the NSF budget accounts for only three percent of the $70 billion federal investment in research and development, it amounts to nearly 50 percent of all Federal support for non-medical basic research at academic institutions, and about 30 percent of all Federal support for science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. In addition, in several key areas -- physics, chemistry, mathematics, and others -- NSF provides the majority of Federal funding. Prior Investments Bring Present Dividends Lane cited several examples of the how past investments in NSF have reaped substantial dividends. For example: z NSF-supported astronomical observatories provided invaluable vantage points for gathering data during last summer's collision of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter. Researchers using NSF-support supercomputing centers predicted the times and locations of individual collisions. z The Nation's automakers use micromechanical systems (MEMS), mixtures of sensors, motors, and computers small enough to fit on a pinhead, in airbags and electronic ignition systems. MEMS have emerged as a valuable commercial technology thanks in-part to NSF's timely support of fundamental engineering research. z NSF leadership in mathematics, science, and engineering education has enabled 25 states, 25 urban areas, 6 rural regions, and scores of colleges and universities to plan for and in many instances implement systemic reforms. z The Federal Communications Commission recently employed NSF-supported mathematical economics research on marketplace competition to design auctions at which licenses were allocated for use of the electromagnetic spectrum. These auctions have netted billions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury. Future Investment Goals Lane explained that the budget proposal is consistent with the agency's strategic plan, which was endorsed by the National Science Board in October 1994. That plan identified three broad goals for the Foundation: help the U.S. uphold world leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering; promote the discovery, integration, dissemination, and employment of new knowledge in service to society; and, help achieve excellence in U.S. science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at all levels. World Leadership in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering To help uphold world leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering, the President proposed that funding for research increase by 7.6 percent to $2.45 billion. NSF's contribution is often referred to as the "seed corn" of scientific enterprise, i.e., basic research conducted at academic institutions and education in science and engineering. This produces both the new knowledge and talented people that enable the U.S. to pursue current and emerging opportunities, Lane said. Individual budget increases are: biological sciences [BIO] up 7.6 percent to $324 million; computer and information science and engineering [CISE], up 6.7 percent to $275.6 million; engineering [ENG], up 7.7 percent to $344.2 million; geosciences [GEO], up 7.6 percent to $451.5 million; mathematical and physical sciences [MPS], up 8.3 percent to $698.3 million; and social, behavioral, and economic [SBE] sciences, up 8.0 percent to $122.9 million. In addition, the proposed budget for U.S. Polar Programs will increase 6.1 percent to $234.9 million. This total includes $31.6 million for Arctic research and logistics, a 23.5 percent increase. Scientific Knowledge Serves Society Turning to science's role in advancing knowledge as a service to society, Lane said that nearly two-thirds of the agency's support for research and education is invested in seven defined "strategic" areas. These initiatives span disciplinary boundaries, government agencies, industrial sectors, and international borders. In fiscal year 1996, NSF expects to increase by $85 million its investment in these interdisciplinary areas, an integral part of the Nation's efforts in fundamental research and education in science and engineering. For example, funding for advanced materials and processing will increase 6 percent to $226.1 million; biotechnology will increase 6.2 percent to $176.7 million; civil infrastructure systems, up 5.1 percent to $57.3 million; environment and global change, up 7.9 percent to $355.6 million; high performance computing and communications increases 5.6 percent to $313.6 million; manufacturing, up 6.2 percent to $136.4 million; and science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education, up 1.4 percent to $656 million. Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Lane said that the proposed budget for the education and human resources account totals $599 million, a funding level that will keep NSF at the forefront in improving the Nation's scientific and technological education enterprise. In addition, this funding will help strengthen the scientific and technical workforce by raising the scientific literacy of all Americans. He noted that during the last five years NSF has greatly increased its investment in systemic reform activities that bring about comprehensive change at the city, state, regional, and national level. The objective of these programs is to alter the education of K-12 students in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology by linking school systems to different levels of government, academic institutions, local businesses, museums, and other organizations. Nearly $140 million will go to these systemic reform initiatives in fiscal year 1996. Another critical area is advanced technological education (ATE), an initiative which began in fiscal year 1994. ATE provides support to the nation's two-year colleges in order to better educate those students not currently in a more traditional academic track. The proposed funding for this effort in fiscal year 1996 is $24 million. In total the activities supported by the Foundation will directly impact an estimated 210,000 individuals -- from students to teachers to researchers -- at all levels in 1996. Investment Summary Lane summarized the $3.36 billion budget proposal as one that invests in research and education activities designed to address major issues facing society--competing in world markets, reducing threats to the environment, improving efficiency in all sectors, educating citizens, and improving the quality of life for all Americans. - -end- From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Feb 6 10:14:43 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00949; Mon, 6 Feb 95 10:14:40 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab09542; 6 Feb 95 10:14 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02723; Mon, 6 Feb 95 07:12:29 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA14849; Mon, 6 Feb 1995 08:10:34 -0700 Message-Id: <9502061510.AA14849@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 08:10:34 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: funding opportunities at NSF Status: OR > From stisserv-sender@x.nsf.gov Mon Feb 6 08:04:59 1995 > Received: (drstis@localhost) by x.nsf.gov (8.6.9/8.6.4) id KAA20910 > Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 10:05:11 -0500 > Message-Id: <199502061505.KAA20910@x.nsf.gov> > From: STISSERVE - NSF E-mail Server > To: jgosz (James Gosz) > Subject: nsf94166.txt (complete) ascii > Status: OR > > > ------ begin of nsf94166.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > Title : NSF 94-166 Human Dimensions of Global Change > Type : Program Guideline > NSF Org: SBE > Date : December 13, 1994 > File : nsf94166 > > > > Human Dimensions of > Global Change > Announcement of Special Funding Opportunities Related to the > NSF Global Change Research Program > > DEADLINES: > Funding Opportunity I > General Research on HDGC > - deadlines vary by discipline > > Funding Opportunity II > Policy Sciences for HDGC > - February 15, 1995 > > Funding Opportunity III > Consortium of Research Centers and Research Teams for HDGC > - March 1, 1995 > > HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL CHANGE > Announcement of Research Funding Opportunities > > The National Science Foundation supports three related funding > opportunities for research on the Human Dimensions of Global Change > (HDGC). HDGC research focuses on the interactions between human > and natural systems, with an emphasis on the social and behavioral > processes that shape and influence those interactions. For FY 1995, > proposals are solicited for 1) general research on HDGC; 2) policy > sciences research for HDGC; and 3) a consortium of research centers and > research teams for HDGC research. In FY 1994, $11 million was > budgeted for HDGC research. The FY 1995 budget for these combined > activities is expected to be about $17 million. > > > FUNDING OPPORTUNITY I: General Research on HDGC > > Description > > Proposals for general research on HDGC must be clearly related to social, > psychological, economic, demographic, anthropological, geographic, > governmental, legal, institutional, and/or ethical aspects of global change > including the development of statistical methodology and mathematics > models. Although the emphasis is on global change, proposals for research > on regional or local phenomena are welcome provided the implications for > global effects are clearly specified in the proposal. Proposals should be > well grounded in relevant social science theory, they should explain how > the research will contribute to the enhancement of that theory, and they > should clearly outline and justify the research methods to be used. > Proposals to build or synthesize databases should include detailed research > plans for use of the data. > > Potential topics for research on HDGC, as identified by a federal > interagency white paper on HDGC research, a federal interagency report > on economics and global change, and a National Research Council report > on priorities for HDGC, include, but are not limited to, research on: > > ~ impacts of population on the environment, including > international migration > > ~ innovation and diffusion processes related to global > environmental change > > ~ resource use and management, including land use, land > cover, and land use technologies > > ~ anticipatory and reactive adaptation and mitigation > > ~ global collective action, institutions and governance, > including the sociolegal and ethical dimensions of global > phenomena > > ~ economic issues, including international trade patterns and > global sectoral models > > ~ methodological issues, including non-market valuation, > environmental accounting, and techniques for large-scale > modeling > > Proposal Submission Information > > HDGC is a coordinated activity sustained by the cooperation of programs > in the Division of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research (SBER), the > Office of Polar Programs (OPP), and the Division of Mathematical > Sciences (DMS). The NSF anticipates funding approximately fifty new > HDGC awards in FY 1995. > > Proposals should be submitted to the most relevant program in these units > in accordance with the guidelines in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), > NSF 94-2. Please note page limitations described in the GPG, including > a 15-page maximum for the project description and a 2-page maximum for > biographical sketches. Note also that, in general, appendices are not > allowed. > > HDGC projects that will produce data and information of value to the > broader global change research communities must include a special > information and supplementary documentation section (Proposal Section I) > titled Data and Information Availability. Section I is described in detail on > page 10 of the GPG, and is not counted in the 15-page Project Description > limitation. This discussion should describe the data and information > products, the management plans for their validation, quality control and > archiving, and the costs for these activities. > > Proposals should be mailed to: > (Appropriate Program) > NSF Proposal Processing Unit (PPU), Room P60 > 4201 Wilson Boulevard > Arlington, VA 22230 > > For additional information, contact a program officer in one of the > following programs: > > Division for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research > > Archaeology and Archaeometry Program (703) 306-1759 > Cultural Anthropology Program (703) 306-1758 > Decision, Risk, and Management (703) 306-1757 > Science Program > Economics Program (703) 306-1753 > Ethics and Values Studies Program (703) 306-1743 > Geography and Regional Science Program (703) 306-1754 > Human Cognition and Perception Program (703) 306-1732 > Law and Social Science Program (703) 306-1762 > Linguistics Program (703) 306-1731 > Methodology, Measurement, and (703) 306-1729 > Statistics Program > Physical Anthropology Program (703) 306-1758 > Political Science Program (703) 306-1761 > Research on Science and Technology (703) 306-1742 > Program > Science and Technology Studies (703) 306-1743 > Program > Social Psychology Program (703) 306-1728 > Sociology Program (703) 306-1756 > > Office of Polar Programs > > Arctic Social Sciences (703) 306-1031 > > Division of Mathematical Sciences > > Statistics and Probability Program (703) 306-1870 > Applied Mathematics Program (703) 306-1870 > Computational Mathematics (703) 306-1870 > > FUNDING OPPORTUNITY II: Policy Sciences for HDGC > > Description > > The policy sciences focused area is supported by the Division for Social, > Behavioral, and Economic Research (SBER), the Office of Polar Programs > (OPP), and the Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS). This > component of HDGC was established to further basic research on topics > relevant to the formation and execution of environmental policies. The > objective of policy sciences research for HDGC, as defined for the > purposes of this competition, is to advance basic research on the processes, > methodological tools, and formal models fundamental to the creation, > implementation, and evaluation of environmental policies. The NSF > welcomes proposals that incorporate interdisciplinary approaches and/or > interdisciplinary collaborations on research issues relevant to > environmental policies. In addition to furthering basic research on > environmental policy issues, the NSF seeks to support the communication > and dissemination of results to the policy communities. > > The Research Domain: Methodological Issues > > The policy sciences focused area encourages basic research on > methodological and statistical issues relevant for the requirements of policy > analysis and for understandings of the policy process. Potential topics for > further investigation include: > > ~ models of the policy process, including the extraction of > general relationships from case studies > > ~ research on computational methods, such as those for > general equilibrium analysis, or the conversion of metrics > across different systems in a model > > ~ data issues of availability, organization, validation, reliability, > and issues such as the appropriate elicitation and treatment > of expert judgment to fill data gaps > > ~ research on the valuation of environmental resources, > including theoretical approaches from a variety of disciplines > > ~ integrative measures of sustainability > > ~ indicators of environmental quality > > ~ applied and methodological research on forecasting and > simulation > > The Research Domain: Substantive Issues > > Research is also encouraged on the policy process as related to global > environmental change; that is, the NSF seeks research on the role of > institutions, cultural norms, values, and human actions on the formation, > implementation, and evaluation of environmental policies. All substantive > areas in global environmental change are appropriate avenues for policy > sciences research. Among the topics that have been identified as > particularly pertinent for policy sciences research are: > > Human Adaptation to Global Environmental Change > > ~ the impact of environmental policies on environmental > attitudes, behaviors, and coping responses > > ~ the impact of different types of policies (e.g., tax, > expenditure, regulatory, or legal) on the environment and on > behavioral and institutional responses to environmental > change > > ~ the measurement and development of attitudes toward the > environment > > ~ the design and critical analysis of different types of policy > instruments for addressing environmental issues > > ~ research on judgment under risk and uncertainty > > ~ research on stress reactions and adaptive coping with > environmental changes, such as those produced by migration > and urbanization, and with environmental hazards, such as > those produced by climatic threats or natural disasters > > ~ research on how market and non-market institutions > mitigate the damage associated with environmental hazards, > including natural disasters > > Societal Values and Environmental Justice > > ~ the relationship between environmental policy and different > conceptions of environmental justice > > ~ the assignment of values to disparate aspects of > environmental change and environmental policy > > ~ evaluations of the "fairness" of environmental change and > environmental policy > > Technological Innovation and Diffusion > > ~ the effect of environmental policies on technological > diffusion rates and the rate of technological change > > ~ the spread of technologies and practices relevant to > environmental change within and across countries > > ~ the relationship between technological change and > environmental equity > > The International/Transnational Environment > > ~ theories of compliance, monitoring, and enforcement that > account for the role of sub-national, national and supra- > national entities in the development and implementation > of international treaties and transnational agreements > > ~ research on determinants of international trade and > investment patterns, and the links between these patterns > and the global environment > > ~ research on the ethical implications of > international/transnational agreements on global > environmental change > > In addition to research proposals, this focused area encourages proposals > for workshops, conferences, or other activities that foster communication > and dissemination of policy relevant basic research to interested parties > beyond the academic research community. > > Proposal Submission Information > > All institutions eligible to receive support from the NSF research > directorates may submit proposals in response to this part of this > announcement. The Foundation also > has express statutory authority to support research performed by other > Federal agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development > Centers (FFRDCs) . The Foundation ordinarily does not encourage > research proposals from other Federal agencies or FFRDCs; however, for > this particular announcement the Foundation will consider proposals for > research and logistic support activities of other Federal agencies or > FFRDCs directed to the goals of special national and international > research programs for which the Foundation bears special responsibility. > Scientists from other federal agencies or FFRDCs are encouraged to > participate by developing collaborations with university scientists. Any > proposals under this category should not include costs related to Civil > Service Salaries for federal scientists. > > Policy sciences proposals must include a special information and > supplementary documentation section (Proposal Section I) titled "Policy > Relevance." Section I is described in detail on page 10 of the GPG, and > is not counted in the 15-page Project Description limitation. For the > purposes of this solicitation, the Policy Relevance discussion is limited to > two pages and must contain an explicit statement on the policy relevance > of the proposed research. In particular, the PI must identify the "target > group," or set of policy makers and/or policy analysts who are likely to > benefit from this research. Once identified, the PI must elaborate on the > potential benefits of this research for the designated target group. The PI > should also address ways that members of the research team intend to > communicate the research results to the relevant target group. > > In addition, if the project will produce data and information of value to the > broader global change research communities, Section I also must include > a discussion of ~Data and Information Availability.~ This discussion > should describe the data and information products, the management plans > for their validation, quality control and archiving, and the costs for these > activities. > > Proposals for this special emphasis area must be postmarked no later than > 15 February 1995. The NSF anticipates funding approximately 25 new > awards in policy sciences research in FY 1995. > > For additional information, contact a program officer in one of the > participating programs listed in the part of this announcement describing > General Research on HDGC. The NSF mailing address for the Proposal > Processing Unit (PPU) is also included in this section. > > > FUNDING OPPORTUNITY III: Consortium of HDGC Research Centers > and Research Teams > > Description > > Progress on many global change problems requires sustained disciplinary, > interdisciplinary, and/or multidisciplinary efforts that can be achieved only > through the explicit coordination of people and resources. In FY 1995, > NSF has designated $6 million for a consortium of research centers and > research teams focusing on HDGC research. The goals of this competition > are to: > > ~ facilitate the progress of HDGC research > > ~ promote HDGC education and the training of researchers > ranging from undergraduate to post-doctoral levels > > ~ foster interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research > collaborations on HDGC issues > > Definition > > Through this competition, NSF seeks to support activities that are larger > in scale than investigator-initiated research projects. NSF expects to fund > a number of activities of varying sizes and durations; in particular, this > competition will make awards in two categories: 1) Research Teams and > 2) Research Centers. As defined for this competition, Research Teams are > activities involving a group of investigators focusing on a single HDGC > research topic for a period of 3-5 years. The maximum NSF award for a > Research Team will not exceed $250,000 for a one year period, with a > possible total funding level of $1,250,000 for a five-year award. Research > Centers are activities involving a group of researchers focusing on a set of > related HDGC issues for a period of at least five years. The maximum > NSF award for a Research Center will not exceed $2 million for a one > year period, with a possible total funding level of $10 million for a five- > year award. Awards made from proposals submitted to this competition > will be in the form of either standard grants or cooperative agreements. > > Requirements > > Proposed research centers and research teams should focus on topics of > importance for human dimensions of global change research and must > include an education and training component. NSF welcomes proposals > on any HDGC research topic whose resolution requires a sustained, large- > scale research effort. NSF particularly encourages proposals that focus on > policy sciences research or HDGC components of research in the area of > integrated assessment. Proposals for centers or teams focusing on policy > sciences may be jointly funded by the Policy Sciences competition. > Proposals for centers or teams focusing on HDGC components of research > in the area of integrated assessment may be jointly funded through the > Methods and Models for Integrated Assessment (MMIA) funding > opportunity. > > Consortium of Centers and Teams > > In order to capitalize on the synergies inherent in collaborative efforts, all > proposals funded by this competition will be networked into a "consortium > of centers and teams." Proposals should include travel funds for an annual > meeting of Principal Investigators in Washington, D.C. to discuss additional > collaboration and integration of efforts. In addition, proposals should > specify mechanisms for communicating with other centers and teams in the > network and with the larger HDGC community. > > Proposal Format, Content, and Review > > Proposals should be prepared and submitted in accordance with > procedures outlined in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF 94-2; > however, note the following deviations from GPG guidelines: > > 1) The Project Description -- Proposal Section C -- must contain the > following six subsections. > > PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUBSECTIONS > Research Team Research Center > > I. "Results from Prior NSF Support." 4 pages maximum 4 pages > maximum Limit of 1 1/2 pages per project > and/or PI. > > II. "Research Proposal." A description 7 pages 9 pages > of the HDGC research topic(s) proposed maximum maximum > for investigation by the center or team > and an outline of the research plan. > > III. "Education and Training." Details 2 pages 3 pages > on the education and training component maximum maximum > of center or team activities. > > IV. "Value of Center or Team." An 2 pages 2 pages > elaboration on the added value of maximum maximum > center or team activities for > furthering HDGC research beyond the > shorter-term individual investigator > initiated research projects. > > V. "Management Plan." Research Teams 2 pages 4 pages > should describe the nature of the maximum maximum > collaborative effort and the division > of responsibilities among team participants. > Research Centers must also include a > description of the logistical, operational, > and management aspects of the center, including > descriptions of the specific site(s) where the > center will function or the type(s) of site(s) > where the center is expected to function and > explanations of how the institution(s) will > administer the center. Either Research Teams > or Research Centers may involve a consortium of > two or more institutions, but a single institution > must accept overall management responsibility, > with payments to collaborators handled through > subcontracts. > > VI. "Networking Options." A description of 2 pages 2 pages > plans for communicating with other NSF funded maximum maximum > centers and teams, and with the larger HDGC > research community. > > > 2) Special Information/Supplementary Documentation -- Section I. > Section I is described in detail on page 10 of the GPG, and is not counted > in the Project Description page limitation described above. Section I must > be submitted if one or both of the following criteria holds: > > (a) If one of the proposed topics of research for the center > or team is policy sciences, a section titled "Policy Relevance" > must be included in the proposal. For the purposes of this > competition, the Policy Relevance discussion is limited to > two pages and must contain an explicit statement on the > policy relevance of the proposed research. In particular, the > PI must identify the "target group," or set of policy makers > and/or policy analysts who are likely to benefit from this > research. Once identified, the PI must elaborate on the > potential benefits of this research for the designated target > group. In addition, the PI should address ways that > members of the research center or team intend to > communicate the research results to the relevant target > group. > > (b) If the project will produce data and information of > value to the broader global change research communities, a > section titled ~Data and Information Availability~ must be > included in the proposal. This discussion should describe > the data and information products, the management plans > for their validation, quality control and archiving, and the > costs for these activities. > > (c) If a project relates to policy sciences and it will produce > data and/or information of general benefit to global change > research communities, discussions of both Policy Relevance > and Data and Information Availability must be included in > Section I of the proposal. > > > Proposals will be evaluated by outside reviewers and a multidisciplinary > panel of experts on HDGC research. In addition, site visits to institutions > submitting the most competitive center proposals may be conducted by > NSF staff and external experts. The NSF anticipates funding between ten > and fifteen awards for research centers or research teams in FY 1995. > > Proposal Submission > > Proposals must be postmarked no later than 1 March 1995. The original > copy and 17 additional copies should be mailed in a single package clearly > marked "Center for HDGC Research/SBER" to: > > NSF Proposal Processing Unit (PPU) > 4201 Wilson Boulevard > Arlington, VA 22230 > > Other Information > > Inquiries regarding the Consortium of HDGC Research Centers and > Teams competition should be directed to: > > Thomas Baerwald > Division of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research > National Science Foundation > 4201 Wilson Boulevard > Arlington, VA 22230 > Phone: (703) 306-1754 > Internet: tbaerwal@nsf.gov > > or > > Cheryl Eavey > Division of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research > National Science Foundation > 4201 Wilson Boulevard > Arlington, VA 22230 > Phone: (703) 306-1729 > Internet: ceavey@nsf.gov > > > Prospective applicants should be aware that the Committee on the Human > Dimensions of Global Change of the National Academy of Sciences > conducted a workshop on "Research Needs and Modes of Support for the > Human Dimensions of Global Change" in June 1994. Copies of the > workshop report are available from: > > Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change > National Academy of Sciences > 2101 Constitution Avenue > Washington, D.C. 20418 > Phone: (202) 334-3005 > > Proposals for all funding opportunities described in this announcement will > be reviewed in accordance with established foundation procedures and the > four general criteria described in the Grant Proposal Guide. > > Grant General Conditions > > NSF provides awards for Research in the sciences and engineering. The > awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and > preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does > not assume responsibility for the research findings of the interpretation. > > The Foundation welcomes proposals form all qualified scientists and > engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities, and person with > disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and relates programs > described here. > > In accordance with federal statues, regulations and NSF policies, no person > on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin or disability shall be > excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject to > discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance > from the National Science Foundation. > > Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) > provides funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons > with disabilities (Investigators and other staff, including student research > assistants) to work on an NSF project. See the program announcement or > contact the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636. > > Privacy Act and Public Burden > > Information requested on NSF application material is solicited under the > authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It > will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and > may be used and disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as > part of the review process and to other government agencies. See Systems > of Records NSF-50," Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated > Records", and NSF 51, "Reviewer/Proposals File and Associated Records," > 56 Federal Register 54907 (Oct. 23, 1991). Submission of the information > is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, > may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. > The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated > to average 120 hours per response, including time for reviewing > instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other > aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing > this burden, to: > Herman G. Fleming > Reports Clearance Officer > Division of CPO, NSF > Arlington, VA 22230; > > and to the > > Office of Management and Budget > Paperwork Reduction Project (3145-0058) > Wash., D.C. 20503. > > > > Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: 47.074, 47.050, > 47.049, 47.075 > > > OMB 3145-0058 > PT 34 > KW 0404000, 0310001, 0411009, 0111001, 0401000, 0402000, > 0408000, 0409000, 0410000, 0411000, 0411009, 0412000, > 0414000, 0413000, 0417000, 1007000, 1010013, 1010000 > > NSF 94-166 (new) > ------ end of nsf94166.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Feb 6 10:14:45 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00950; Mon, 6 Feb 95 10:14:43 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09575; 6 Feb 95 10:14 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02736; Mon, 6 Feb 95 07:13:01 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA14873; Mon, 6 Feb 1995 08:11:07 -0700 Message-Id: <9502061511.AA14873@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 08:11:07 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: funding opportunity addendum Status: OR > From stisserv-sender@x.nsf.gov Mon Feb 6 07:59:52 1995 > Received: (drstis@localhost) by x.nsf.gov (8.6.9/8.6.4) id KAA20575 > Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 10:00:05 -0500 > Message-Id: <199502061500.KAA20575@x.nsf.gov> > From: STISSERVE - NSF E-mail Server > To: jgosz (James Gosz) > Subject: nsf9529.txt (complete) ascii > Status: OR > > > ------ begin of nsf9529.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > Title : NSF 95-29 Announcement of Special Funding Opportunities (Addendum to > NSF 94-166) > Type : Program Guideline > NSF Org: SBE / INT > Date : January 27, 1995 > File : nsf9529 > > > HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL CHANGE > Announcement of Special Funding Opportunities (NSF 94-166) > > FUNDING OPPORTUNITY III: > Consortium of HDGC Research Centers and Research Teams > > ADDENDUM > > > International Opportunities for Research Centers and Research Teams > in the Human Dimensions of Global Change (HDGC) > > The National Science Foundation (NSF) encourages international > collaboration in proposals for HDGC Research Centers and Research > Teams. Proposers are invited to include a component that addresses > international cooperation in research on HDGC in their response to > this announcement. Priority will be given to catalytic activities and > opportunities for investigators who are early in their careers and to > activities that expand the circle of research collaboration by > involving junior researchers, women, and/or minorities in the effort, > or by bringing researchers from other institutions or neighboring > countries into global research networks. > > Funds are available to support the incremental costs, including > international airfare, per diem, and minor costs for materials and > health insurance, of international collaborative partnerships between > U.S. principal investigators and their foreign partners. Eligible > collaborative activities include cooperative research projects, joint > seminars and workshops, postdoctoral and graduate-student research, > and planning visits, in all fields of science and engineering > supported by the NSF. Normally, this funding supports only the costs > of the U.S. side of the collaboration*. > > Investigators should describe the nature of the international > partnership and the expected international and scientific or > engineering benefits to the research program. The synopsis of the > international cooperative arrangements should include a description of > the research facilities at the foreign site(s), the schedule of > activities, and the division of labor and expertise among the > collaborators. Biographical sketches of proposed collaborators should > be provided. > > *For more information, including special funding arrangements for > specific geographic regions, refer to the International Opportunities > for Scientists and Engineers Program Announcement (NSF 93-51), > [available electronically on STIS or from the NSF Division of > International Programs at (703) 306-1709 or NSF TDD (703) 306-0090]. > > ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF NSF 94-166 CONTINUE TO APPLY > > NSF 95- 29 (Addendum to NSF 94-166) > > ------ end of nsf9529.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > From parmentr@puerco.unm.edu Wed Feb 8 12:27:02 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10249; Wed, 8 Feb 95 12:27:00 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19171; 8 Feb 95 12:26 EST Received: from puerco.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27148; Wed, 8 Feb 95 09:27:14 PST Received: by puerco.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02570; Wed, 8 Feb 1995 10:25:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 10:25:10 -0700 From: Bob Parmenter Message-Id: <9502081725.AA02570@puerco.unm.edu> To: jobs@lternet.edu, pi@lternet.edu, student@lternet.edu Status: ORS Memo to: ALL LTER RESEARCHERS From: Bob Parmenter, Sevilleta LTER Subject: REU Site Program at Sevilleta The UNM Department of Biology is soliciting applications from undergraduate students for participation in a Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. If you know of any undergraduates that might be interested in spending the summer of 1995 on the Sevilleta as an REU student, please have them contact me at the address/phone/email listed below. Also, if you have opportunities for some of our UNM undergrads, I'd like to pass them on to my students. Thanks for your cooperation! -- Bob Parmenter ********************************************************************** 1995 SUMMER RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS WITH THE SEVILLETA LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM The UNM Department of Biology has been refunded for 3 years for our NSF-sponsored site program for RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATES (REU). The program is designed to promote the inclusion of undergraduate science majors in scientific studies in collaboration with the Sevilleta LTER Program. As such, the Sevilleta REU Program will again offer 10 undergraduate research stipends to selected students during the summer of 1995. The Sevilleta Research Region: Students will participate in ongoing ecological studies of plants, animals, and biogeochemical cycles, involving the Sevilleta Research Region in the central Rio Grande valley of New Mexico. The research sites include the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, the Sierra Ladrones Wilderness Study Area, and the Magdalena Mountains (Cibola National Forest). These areas cover approximately 1,000 square miles of central New Mexico, and include a wide variety of biomes and habitat types. Habitats under study include Rio Grande Riparian Cottonwood Forest, Chihuahuan Desert, Great Plains Grasslands, Great Basin Shrub-Steppe, Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands, Mixed-Conifer Forests, and Subalpine Spruce-Fir-Aspen Forests and Meadows. Elevations in the study areas range from 4,400 ft at the Rio Grande to almost 11,000 ft in the Magdalena Mountains. REU Program Description: Students will assist UNM biologists with ongoing field research projects in botanical and zoological studies during the summer of 1995 (12 weeks). In addition, each student will undertake an independent research project in collaboration with a selected faculty advisor. Project topics in 1995 include studies of (1) interactions among grass species in a blue-grama/black-grama transition zone, (2) small-mammal/arthropod interactions with vegetation, and (3) population genetics studies on riparian cottonwood forests. These projects will teach the student how to (1) develop hypotheses, design and implement a scientific study, (2) analyze and interpret data, and (3) write a scientific manuscript for journal publication. Students also will give pre-project and post-project seminar presentations to fellow REU students and UNM faculty and staff. Student Housing: Students will live at the UNM Sevilleta Field Research Station located near the Headquarters of the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. Students will be given quarters with other REU students in 3-bedroom houses at the station. Lodging is free for REU students. Houses contain fully-equipped kitchens for meal preparation. Student Stipends: Each student will receive a $250/week stipend for participating in the 12 weeks of the REU Program. Eligibility and Qualifications: Student applicants must be enrolled in an undergraduate college or university program, and must not have received their degree prior to the summer program. Applicants must be U.S. citizens. Students should have a strong academic background in biology and ecology, and be highly motivated for independent research. Knowledge of computers, word-processing software and basic statistics would be extremely useful, but not required. The UNM REU Program is an equal opportunity program; women and minorities are encouraged to apply. The Sevilleta Field Station is also wheelchair accessible. APPLICATION DUE DATE: March 1, 1995. SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS WILL BE NOTIFIED STARTING MARCH 15, 1995. FOR APPLICATION PACKETS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT EITHER: DR. ANN S. EVANS DR. ROBERT R. PARMENTER REU PROGRAM COORDINATOR REU PROGRAM COORDINATOR DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87131 ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87131 Telephone: 505-277-2724 Telephone: 505-277-7619 FAX: 505-277-5355 FAX: 505-277-5355 Email: asevans@sevilleta.unm.edu Internet: parmentr@sevilleta.unm.edu Bitnet: PARMENTR@UNMB.BITNET **************************************************************************** From jerry@lternet.edu Thu Feb 9 21:27:36 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17838; Thu, 9 Feb 95 21:27:35 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02513; 9 Feb 95 21:27 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09580; Thu, 9 Feb 95 18:26:04 PST Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 18:26:04 -0800 (PST) From: Jerry Franklin Subject: Network Office funding To: pi@lternet.edu, NET@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR If you are so moved, please let NSF know how you are feeling about their decision and my commentary/proposal by Monday a.m., EST, via e-mail or Fax to Allen with a copy to Mary Clutter. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 18:20:38 -0800 (PST) From: Jerry Franklin To: mAllen@nsf.gov Cc: mClutter@nsf.gov, jRoskoski@nsf.gov Subject: Your Feb 3, 1995 e-mail message re Network Office grant February 9, 1995 To: Mike Allen, Program Officer, Long-Term Projects, DEB, NSF From: Jerry Franklin, PI, LTER Network Program Grant Your e-mail message of last Friday advising us that NSF is not going to fund the LTER Network Office came as a complete and very unpleasant surprise. I think that this decision needs to be carefully considered in detail by NSF and the LTER Executive Committee to see what its consequences will be; presumably, we do not want outcomes that are destructive to our common goals. This decision will be extraordinarily disruptive to the LTER networking program. It creates exactly the conditions that we--NSF, the Coordinating Committee, and the Network Office--have worked so hard to avoid during the last 18 months. Collectively, we agreed that we wanted continuity, a smooth transition to a new chair, and an opportunity to see what could be achieved at the University of Washington under a new structure. Collectively, we developed and pursued a common strategy for achieving those objectives. At the very last minute--and with no consultation or even warning to the Coordinating Committee and Network Program--NSF has apparently decided not to follow through. This is certainly an NSF prerogative--the Network Office was the creation of NSF and has functioned as your agent in administering LTER. Together, through the Network Office, NSF and LTER have created an LTER network program. The negative impacts of this decision on LTER networking activities need to be clearly understood. They are going to be substantial and long lasting. Let me outline a few of the most important. First, there will be an immediate reduction in the level of services and activities supported through the network office grant. With the dollar limitation and the direction to emphasize the connectivity, it can't be any other way. Specific examples include: 1) phasing out the toll-free dial-in number for LTERnet, 2) reducing the publication, public education, and other information provision activities, and 3) eliminating essentially all workshops except for those associated with international or connectivity (data managers) activities. The NSF decision will also greatly reduce the likelihood of NASA funding for the Sun Photometer proposal which Vande Castle just submitted. Second, this decision assures that there will be a very major loss of continuity in LTER networking services and activities. Current Network Office capabilities will gradually erode well before a new network office can recruit and train competent staff. The dedicated and capable people who currently staff the Network Office must begin looking for alternative employment now; your decision leaves no room for them to believe that either their abilities or commitment is going to count for much in a subsequent competition. On the other side of the transition, it is clear that NSF cannot get a new network office in place and operational soon enough for there to be a meaningful overlap with the current office. Indeed, unless the new location selected is one of the existing LTER sites (which all of us agreed would be undesirable) the new network office staff is going to be very low on the learning curve and in the development of working relationships with the Chair, the Executive and Coordinating Committees, and the LTER scientists and program. Third, this decision creates an unworkable and unfair situation for the new chair of LTER. Jim Gosz will be depending for most of his programmatic support upon a lame duck network office that is losing capabilities. At the same time, he will have no idea where his new staff support--the network office--is going to be and who is going to be running it. He won't be able to submit a proposal (assuming that the competition occurs in the next 6 months); many in LTER would argue that he shouldn't anyway, since we collectively agreed that the office should not follow the chair. Further, he will have little if any opportunity to influence the selection of the new network office or the content of its proposal--yet he is expected to direct its activities. Effectively, Gosz will have to devote much of his energy to controlling the damage to the network program and to building a working relationship with the new office and staff. He will be in a transition, without an effective working staff, for at least the next two years. This will certainly greatly reduce his ability to concentrate on developing positive and new network activities and relationships. This decision will also severely reduce Gosz' leverage within the LTER program and with existing and potential external collaborators by sending a clear message that NSF is effectively abandoning the collaborative mode of the last decade. Which brings me to my last major point. This decision will effectively destroy the momentum that we have all worked so hard to create over the last 10 years. If it is also decided that there will be no competition for site augmentation this year, individual LTER programs will understand very clearly that they are on their own and, effectively, competitors with each other. It will be clear that a collaborative relationship between NSF and LTER is effectively over and that, in the future, LTER will be just like any other NSF program. The belief in and commitment to a shared vision of the LTER program is a very precious commodity. If this is lost--and it has already been badly eroded--we will not get that magic back. It is not the decision itself that has done the damage and will continue to do so in the future. We could have collectively decided to phase out the office in Seattle 18 months ago when we--NSF, CC, and the Network Office--began the discussions about a transition; indeed, we DID consider it. Rather, it is the way in which this cooperative venture is being unilaterally terminated after a long period of careful planning and execution by all involved parties. I will be in Washington, D.C. on Monday morning to meet with you to discuss the consequences of this decision. Caroline Bledsoe, John Magnuson, and Bruce Hayden will also be present to represent the Executive Committee. We believe that NSF should reconsider its decision and, at a minimum, provide for two years of support for the current Network Office to avoid the major hiatus in LTER Network activities that will certainly result from this current decision. The provision of a two-year period for responding to critical reviews would also be consistent with the way in which other LTER Programs that have been deemed "unsatisfactory" have been handled in the past. The LTER Executive Committee are prepared to work with NSF in outlining a two-year plan for a transition to a new structure and may have some draft materials in hand. The earliest we can arrive at NSF, given red-eye schedules, is about 10:30 a.m. We will stop by your office to meet with you and Dr. Roskoski, if you are both available. We have an appointment with Dr. Mary Clutter at 11:00 a.m., so much of our meeting with you may need to continue probably after lunch. I will also have a University of Washington budget in hand totalling no more than $990,000. Some prompt budgetary action on the part of NSF is absolutely critical. We are out of money and the University is not at all persuaded that any NSF support will be forthcoming, based on your February 3 message. cc: LTER principal investigators, Network Office staff From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Feb 10 19:18:08 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21583; Fri, 10 Feb 95 19:18:07 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08221; 10 Feb 95 19:18 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15785; Fri, 10 Feb 95 16:16:28 PST Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 16:16:26 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: NSF Monograph Report (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR PEET WORKSHOP REPORT AVAILABLE ******************************************** A report of a panel-workshop held by the National Science Foundation on 29-30 November, 1994 to discuss practices and directions in monographic research (PEET Special Competition in Systematic Biology, NSF brochure 94-109) is now available. This report includes information relevant to the development and evaluation of a PEET proposal. This report has been placed on an electronic bulletin board, International Society for Evolutionary Protistology available on the WWW server. It can be accessed directly on http: //megasun.bch.umontreal.ca/isep/isep/peet.html or indirectly on http: //megasun.bch.umontreal.ca/isep/isep.html (select "PEET Report" on the ISEP home page--first one that comes up when the document is loaded) From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Feb 10 22:08:19 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21810; Fri, 10 Feb 95 22:08:18 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15223; 10 Feb 95 22:08 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16379; Fri, 10 Feb 95 19:08:10 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00874; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:06:16 -0700 Message-Id: <9502110306.AA00874@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 20:06:16 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Future of DOE hearing Status: OR House Energy Appropriations Committee Hearing on Future of DOE FYI No. 20, February 7, 1995 On January 31, the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee convened a second hearing on "The Future of the Department of Energy." In contrast to an earlier hearing on this topic (see FYI #10), the witnesses at this hearing gave DOE a much stronger vote of confidence. Chairman John Myers (R-Indiana) set the tone for this more optimistic hearing by saying there "nothing new" about calls for change at DOE, and that the subcommittee was interested in what "we might do to work together to make it more effective to do the job that we so vitally need." Despite this upbeat tone, Myers expressed reservations about DOE's fusion energy program and the LHC. Edward Teller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; William Happer, Princeton University; Frederick Bernthal, Universities Research Association; and John Conway, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board testified at this hearing. All supported DOE and its national labs, although many efficiency and cost-cutting recommendations were offered. Rep. Jim Chapman (D-Texas), citing the previous hearing, asked Teller if it was appropriate for DOE to be involved in research, to which Teller replied "absolutely yes." Chapman said this response was "significantly more telling than a lot of rhetoric we heard here a week or so ago." Happer testified that "the loss of DOE funds for basic research would be devastating for the research community, and in the long run, the loss would be devastating for the US economy." He warned that DOE's research function has "no obvious defenders," and could be lost if the department was radically reorganized. Bernthal offered a strong defense of the national labs, but criticized their management by DOE, cautioning, "if current policies and trends continue I believe the national laboratories as a group will experience a slow decline." Ranking Minority Member Tom Bevill (D-Alabama) expressed some misgivings about unspecified DOE programs, saying "we don't have anything to show for it." He narrowed the discussion to energy programs, with fusion research eventually becoming a central topic. Continuing this line of questioning, Chairman Myers asked, "can we afford ITER?" Happer said no one knew what ITER would cost, or the difficulty getting four nations to agree on a reactor site, warning that it could take years of negotiations. "That's my nightmare," Happer said. "I'm speaking very frankly, I'm just not sure it will happen.... it has an enormous impact on our national program. It is the centerpiece of our fusion program. Everything goes for ITER. And what happens to the native American program?" Myers responded, "Are you suggesting then that if we do go to ITER, or TPX, that some of the fusion programs are going to suffer, that the research is going to suffer?" Happer replied, "yes sir." Myers continued, "twenty-five years ago, we were promised within five, possibly ten years, we would have at least a working model of a fusion reactor...." Happer described the "enormous progress" accomplished in fusion research, citing Princeton's TFTR. Myers agreed, but said of the effort that "it's kind of expensive, it isn't what we had in mind." The amount of money provided by Congress for this research is probably at least a partial cause of this outcome, Myers admitted. Expanding on this theme, Myers continued, "it's just one of many programs...we are thinking about; CERN is an example. Do we need to drop out...and come back here at home?" Showing some emotion, Myers said, "This committee has been burned, a number of times, through bad advice," citing abandoned DOE projects up through the SSC. Support for the collider was strong until a site was selected, he said, predicting that ITER could run into similar problems. "We got to decide, make some decisions here," before spending multi-billions of dollars for ITER, Myers stated. Myers, obviously a proponent of DOE, summed-up what will likely be his approach to possible termination of DOE's large projects: "If we're going to get cold feet a year or two from now, we had better do it now." ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Feb 10 22:11:36 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21817; Fri, 10 Feb 95 22:11:35 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16024; 10 Feb 95 22:11 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16391; Fri, 10 Feb 95 19:09:50 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00891; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:07:56 -0700 Message-Id: <9502110307.AA00891@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 20:07:56 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: 96 budget for science Status: OR FY 1996 Budget Request: Gibbons Reviews Science & Technology FYI No. 21, February 8, 1995 With the release of the $1.6 trillion budget request on February 6, the Clinton Administration made known its plans and priorities for fiscal year 1996. At a briefing in the Old Executive Office Building, Presidential Science Advisor Jack Gibbons discussed science and technology in the request. The Administration has two overarching budget objectives, which Gibbons termed "following a two-fold way:" reducing the deficit and investing for the future. While the budget requires deep cuts in many budget areas, Gibbons said, it also "reflects the President's commitment to investing in science and technology and education." The budget request supports both basic, fundamental science (which Gibbons said had "the highest rate of total return of any federal investment") and partnerships with industry to foster applied technologies. According to Gibbons, total federal support for research and development "increases very slightly, . . . despite the downward motion" of the rest of the discretionary budget. (The budget comprises discretionary and mandatory spending and interest on the national debt.) He provided the following highlights from the budget request: Basic research would receive the largest percentage increase in the science and technology budget, rising 3.5 percent. This growth "has not been easy to achieve," Gibbons noted, because one-third of basic research is performed in the mission agencies, which "are under heavy pressure for downsizing." Support for academic R&D would increase by 7 percent. Research and related activities at NSF would grow by 8 percent, Gibbons said, "in order to refocus on this investment in fundamental research." Government partnerships with industry to support applied technologies would also be increased. NIST's Advanced Technology Program would grow by 14 percent, DOE's cooperative R&D agreements by 8 percent, and DOD's Technology Reinvestment Program by 13 percent. Gibbons predicted "an intensive dialogue" with Congress on these programs, which some Republicans have criticized as "industrial policy.". Other science and technology programs to receive emphasis from the Administration include high performance computing and information technologies, education and training, health and food research, environmental protection, national security, and international stability. Gibbons also highlighted an effort to have more federal research programs submit to a merit review process. In response to the budget request, House Science Committee Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) stated that "the outlook for science and technology programs remains grim." Brown reported that the federal R&D budget, totalling $72.9 billion, "represents a real decline of 3 percent in budget authority." He commended progress toward evening out the funding for civilian and defense R&D (the percentage of civilian would grow by 3.2 percent, while defense would decrease by 2.4 percent.) Expressing concern over Republican intentions for the budget, Brown challenged them "to do as well for the nation's research and development investments as the President has." ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Feb 10 22:13:09 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21822; Fri, 10 Feb 95 22:13:07 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16439; 10 Feb 95 22:13 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16432; Fri, 10 Feb 95 19:13:43 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00925; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:11:49 -0700 Message-Id: <9502110311.AA00925@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 20:11:49 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NASA 1996 budget overview Status: OR FY 1996 Budget Request: NASA - Overview FYI No. 24, February 10, 1995 President Clinton's fiscal year 1996 budget request gives NASA a total of $14.26 billion. This is $203.7 million, or 1.4 percent, less than the space agency's current year budget. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin summarized both the good and bad news in his February 6 budget briefing. "This FY 1996 budget request...will allow us to deliver a strong aeronautics and space program that's relevant to America," he said, but "the tough news is that...we'll be taking a cut of nearly $5 billion over the next five years." The Administration's plans call for a NASA budget of only $13 billion by the end of the century. "Make no mistake," Goldin warned, "when this is over, NASA will be profoundly different. We're going to restructure the agency." Even with a decreasing budget, NASA maintains President Clinton's dual themes of reducing costs while investing in the future. NASA has started a "New Millennium" program to develop a fleet of small spacecraft "about a tenth of the cost and a tenth of the weight of today's spacecraft." Another new initiative is a reusable launch vehicle to replace the space shuttle. Funding for NASA's Human Space Flight account would remain essentially flat (decreasing by 0.1 percent), with the space station program also staying about flat. The Science, Aeronautics and Technology account, which includes space science, would grow by 1.1 percent; Mission Support would grow by 5.3 percent. Goldin said NASA intended to allow opportunities for new missions in the 5-year budget profile by including a "budget wedge," starting at $10 million in fiscal 1996, for which no use is specified. Questioned about where he would find funding for Gravity Probe B if it receives approval from the National Academy of Sciences (which is currently reviewing the project), Goldin replied that NASA "will make the resources available" from the rest of the budget. Details of funding for selected NASA accounts will be provided in a future FYI. Funding cuts in recent years have already reduced NASA's budget by 30 percent, shrinking the agency and eliminating low-priority programs. "The American people have spoken," Goldin announced, "and they want a NASA that does more with less." Although not ready to specify exactly how the agency will achieve its budget objectives, he reported that NASA is currently undergoing a top-to-bottom review "to determine where to cut." Goldin noted that NASA's infrastructure was intended, in the early 1990s, for a growing agency with a projected end-of-the-century budget of $43 billion rather than $13 billion. "Everything is on the table," he said, including downsizing or eliminating facilities and field centers, and combining operations with DOD at some bases. He added that "we also intend to make NASA less of an operations agency and more of an R&D agency." Asked whether this meant reducing NASA's efforts in space, Goldin replied no; he hoped to reduce operations by modernization and privatization. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Feb 10 22:15:10 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21828; Fri, 10 Feb 95 22:15:08 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16832; 10 Feb 95 22:15 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16423; Fri, 10 Feb 95 19:12:37 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00911; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:10:44 -0700 Message-Id: <9502110310.AA00911@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 20:10:43 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: DOE 1996 budget request Status: OR FY 1996 Budget Request: Department of Energy - Fundamental Science FYI No. 23, February 10, 1995 The Department of Energy has sent a $17.8 billion budget request to Congress for Fiscal Year 1996. Current year funding is $17.5 billion. DOE requested $2,810.5 million for fundamental science research, which is an increase of $102.4 million, or 3.8%. Of major importance to the physics community is a $100 million, or 10%, increase in DOE basic research facilities funding. This "Presidential Budget Initiative" would increase user-facility operations about 30%. Twenty-three basic energy sciences, high energy physics, nuclear physics, and scientific computing facilities would be affected. As an example, DOE estimates Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab's operating capacity would increase from 50% to almost 100% utilization. High Energy Physics Funding would increase $43.5 million, or 6.8%, from $642.1 million to $685.6 million. DOE states in its "Budget Highlights" report that this request "accommodates the recommendations of the Drell Panel review of the program and provides $15 million as part of the Scientific Facilities Utilization Initiative" -- which it roughly does. Within this request is $52.0 million for construction of Fermilab's Main Injector and $52.0 million for SLAC's B-Factory. Nuclear Physics Funding declines $10.4 million, or 3.1%, from $331.5 million to $321.1 million. DOE would provide $70.0 million "to operate the completed Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility and continue construction of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider." Last year, the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee recommended a FY 1996 budget of $348 million. Fusion Energy Research Funding declines from $368.4 million to $366.0 million. DOE explains that the magnetic fusion energy budget "provides for a concentrated effort on the tokamak design concept and on an integrated international approach to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion power." The budget's objectives: 1.) completion of the analysis of the TFTR D-T experiments, 2.) "U.S. participation in the engineering design phase" of ITER, 3.) "to construct an experimental facility to explore the physics of improved power plant concepts," 4.) "a strong base physics and technology research program...to support ITER, TPX, and a demonstration power plant." Basic Energy Sciences funding increases $77.5 million, or 10.6%, from $733.9 million to $811.4 million. DOE made no request for the Advanced Neutron Source since it "proposes to terminate the project because of its high cost." Instead, the $348.3 million request for the materials sciences program includes $8.0 million "for research and development leading to the conceptual design of a spallation neutron source to meet the Nation's need for a next generation neutron scattering source." The "preferred site" for this facility is Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Included in the over-all request is $3.2 million for final construction of Argonne's 6-7 GeV Synchrotron Radiation Source and $2.0 million for the Sandia lab's Combustion Research Facility, Livermore. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Feb 10 22:18:13 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21840; Fri, 10 Feb 95 22:18:11 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17558; 10 Feb 95 22:18 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16443; Fri, 10 Feb 95 19:15:13 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00944; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:13:19 -0700 Message-Id: <9502110313.AA00944@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 20:13:19 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NASA 1996 budget details Status: OR FY 1996 Budget Request: NASA - Human Space Flight, Space Science FYI No. 25, February 10, 1995 For Fiscal Year 1996, NASA has sent to Congress a request of $14.26 billion, 1.4 percent less than the current year. The requests for the Human Space Flight and Science, Aeronautics and Technology accounts are highlighted below. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT: $5509.6 million is requested, representing a decrease of 0.1 percent. Space Station programs within this account would decrease 3.0 percent to $1833.6 million (additional station funds are included within Life/Microgravity Sciences.) The cooperative program with the Russian Space Agency would decrease by 13.9 percent to $129.2 million. The space shuttle would receive an increase of 2.4 percent, to $3231.8 million. SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY: $6006.9 million is requested, representing an increase of 1.1 percent. Details are provided below for selected programs within this account: Program: FY96 Request % Change (millions) from FY95 Physics & Astronomy $1131.1 -005.4% AXAF 237.6 +001.4 Global Geospace Science 5.4 -086.5 Explorer Development 129.2 +007.3 Mission Ops./Data Anal. 28.6 -000.9 Research & Analysis 90.4 +019.9 Suborbital Program 106.7 +058.8 Within Research & Analysis, $15.0 million is provided for SIRTF (Space Infrared Telescope Facility); within the Suborbital Program, $48.7 million is provided for SOFIA (Stratespheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy). Gravity Probe B is included as a separate line item, pursuant to its approval by the NAS, but the $51.5 million required would need to be taken from elsewhere in the NASA budget. Planetary Exploration $827.8 +001.3% Cassini 191.5 -024.9 Mars Surveyor Program 108.5 +082.7 Discovery 103.8 -020.0 New Millennium spcrft. 30.0 +185.7 Mission Ops./Data Anal. 127.8 +009.0 Research & Analysis 109.1 +000.7 Missions within the Discovery program include the Mars Pathfinder ($35.9 million) and the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous ($31.3 million.) Life/Micrograv Sci/App. $504.0 +004.3% Mission to Planet Earth 1341.1 +000.1 Reusable Launch Vehicle 159.0 +023.7 ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Feb 12 07:59:13 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA24546; Sun, 12 Feb 95 07:59:12 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12100; 12 Feb 95 7:59 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19112; Sat, 11 Feb 95 14:33:05 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04111; Sat, 11 Feb 1995 15:31:11 -0700 Message-Id: <9502112231.AA04111@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 15:31:11 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Mary Clutter's response Status: OR I sent the following email to Mary after I saw the 96 numbers. Her answer is encouraging but not very revealing. jim > From mclutter@nsf.gov Sat Feb 11 14:07:43 1995 > Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA15976 > (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Sat, 11 Feb 1995 16:07:47 -0500 > Received: from cc:Mail by xrelay.nsf.gov > id AA792547474; Sat, 11 Feb 95 16:06:48 EST > Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 16:06:48 EST > From: mclutter@nsf.gov > Message-Id: <9501117925.AA792547474@xrelay.nsf.gov> > To: jgosz (James Gosz) > Cc: jgosz > Subject: Re: 96 request > > Mary > I saw the 96 budget which looks pretty good for NSF and DEB. I have one > question and concern. The writeup for Long Term Projects indicates that the > LTER program will be unchanged from FY95. Does that mean that there is no > possibility for an augmentation competition (assuming Congress gives NSF the > budget!)? If there are two years in a row without augmentation, then we need > to reconsider how the Network as a whole approaches this effort at > regionalization. > > Hope to see you soon > > jim gosz > ************************************************ > Jim- > I have not had a chance to catch up with my email until now. > The Request looks OK, but remember it is only a Request and > given the current mood on the Hill seems unlikely to go very > far. One thing worth checking is the 95 Operating Plan. It > is only now going into effect and #'s are still iffy. The > bottom line is that we are basicly flat. In some cases less > than 94. That means a whole lot of hard choices. But, my > priorities have not changed. > Mary > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Feb 12 17:59:09 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25114; Sun, 12 Feb 95 17:59:08 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25045; 12 Feb 95 17:59 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22051; Sun, 12 Feb 95 12:50:08 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02957; Sun, 12 Feb 1995 13:48:13 -0700 Message-Id: <9502122048.AA02957@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sun, 12 Feb 95 13:48:13 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: additional comment from Mary Clutter Cc: jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Status: OR Mary sent this after her response yesterday. jim ************************************* One more thing. We displayed 0 increases for all of our Center and Center-like activities. That means we are not automatically slating them for increases. It does not mean they are not eligible for other funds. Mary From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Feb 12 23:13:43 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25429; Sun, 12 Feb 95 23:13:42 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29960; 12 Feb 95 23:13 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23625; Sun, 12 Feb 95 20:10:13 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04740; Sun, 12 Feb 1995 21:08:19 -0700 Message-Id: <9502130408.AA04740@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sun, 12 Feb 95 21:08:19 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: note from Mike Allen Status: OR Mike sent to following note today. I will plan on a substantial amount of time at the CC meeting in April to work on this. jim gosz from Mike Allen "please keep the LTER folks notified that there is no intent to harm the LTER program or the office. I am certainly more in favor of the system than ever before. However, we do have to work with the resources that are available. The overall LTER budget declined this year which means that there are not enough funds to cover the existing minimum committments. If I fund the Network office as requested, next year a site will have to be shut down. I don't consider that a viable option. Given the state of the budget differences, I would prefer that the LTER scientists develop a more appropriate budget and reasonable goals, not me here in Washington." From jgosz@salado.unm.edu Wed Feb 15 04:59:38 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05799; Wed, 15 Feb 95 04:59:37 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06732; 15 Feb 95 4:59 EST Received: from salado.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07549; Tue, 14 Feb 95 17:51:23 PST Received: by salado.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA20868; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:49:27 -0700 Message-Id: <9502150149.AA20868@salado.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 18:49:26 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: DEB award list Status: OR If anyone would like to see the 1993 DEB award list let me know. I won't send it unless requested. jim gosz From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Feb 15 13:41:42 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07625; Wed, 15 Feb 95 13:41:41 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa14552; 15 Feb 95 13:41 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11293; Wed, 15 Feb 95 10:40:14 PST Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:40:13 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Sender: Stephanie Martin Reply-To: Stephanie Martin Subject: Caution re communications To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR A general note of caution: I've been reminded by a colleague that should media interest develop around any events like those of the past week, e-mail messages are permanent Federal records filed away as soon as they are sent, and any reporter who wants to can "FOIA" them. This would apply to "personal" communications as well as communications to Federal employees--all communications going into and out of the agency. Stephanie LTER Network Office From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Feb 15 14:44:30 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07977; Wed, 15 Feb 95 14:44:28 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07505; 15 Feb 95 14:44 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11815; Wed, 15 Feb 95 11:41:01 PST Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:41:01 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Draft US Biodi & Ecosys Research Plan (fwd) To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, erg@lternet.washington.edu, lab@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORS DRAFT US Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics Research Plan In 1994, a team of US federal agency representatives collaborated to develop a national strategy and implementation plan for biodiversity and ecosystem dynamics research. The Subcommittee on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (SBED), co-chaired by Dr. Ron Pulliam of the National Biological Service and Dr. Tom Lovejoy of the Smithsonian Institution, met many times over the year to develop its strategy and plan. Dr. Bruce Umminger of the National Science Foundation and Dr. Paul Dresler of the Department of the Interior served as the executive secretaries for the group. In March 1994, the National Academy of Sciences provided reaction to a very early draft and valuable input for later drafting effort. The draft strategy and implementation plan are now released for review and comments. The documents may be found on BENE at URL: ftp://keck.tamu.edu/pub/bene/SBED_Plan.txt (Note--about 150K in size) Comments are invited from any interested readers, and should be directed to Dr. Paul Dresler at email pdresler@ios.doi.gov . This is your opportunity to make some direct input. The SBED is a part of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Research (CENR), which in turn is part of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), created by the Clinton/Gore administration to define US national research and development strategies and plans. More information about the NSTC may be found under URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/White_House/EOP/OSTP/html/OSTP_Home.html We hope to make more biodiversity and ecosystems-related planning documents available through BENE in coming weeks as we work to encourage openness, public participation, and dialogue. This is a critical document for setting the US government's research course, so we are starting with something major. Cheers, Steve Young young.steve@epamail.epa.gov U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Smithsonian Biodiversity Program From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Feb 15 19:03:09 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09085; Wed, 15 Feb 95 19:03:08 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03411; 15 Feb 95 19:03 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14947; Wed, 15 Feb 95 16:02:29 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04344; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:00:35 -0700 Message-Id: <9502160000.AA04344@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 17:00:35 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF Geoscience budget request Status: OR FY 1996 Budget Request: NSF - Geosciences, Polar Programs FYI No. 28, February 15, 1995 Below are summaries of the Fiscal Year 1996 National Science Foundation budget requests for the Geosciences Activity and Polar Programs. These are two separate activities and budgets under NSF's Research and Related Activities appropriation (comparable to the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Activity which supports physics and astronomy research.) See FYI #22 for an overview of the entire NSF budget; as well as FYI #26 and forthcoming FYI #29 and 30. GEOSCIENCES ACTIVITY: NSF requested a $451.48 million budget for this activity, which is a 7.6%, or $31.99 million increase. There are three subactivities funded under this budget, each containing separate categories: Atmospheric Sciences Subactivity: NSF requested $155.84 million, which is a $12.03 million (8.4%) increase. There are two categories of spending under this subactivity. The first category is Atmospheric Sciences Research Support, which would receive a budget of $91.01 million. NSF proposes to increase this research support by $5.58 million (6.5%) to permit "a better understanding and improved predictive capability of costly and disruptive storms on Earth and in space; and continued support of activities that are a part of international field programs...." The second category is the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which would receive a $6.45 million (11.0%) increase for a total of $64.83 million. This increase would upgrade "high-performance computing and data storage facilities to support large, long-running simulations of Earth's climate system...." Earth Sciences Subactivity: NSF requested $90.05 million, which is a $7.74 million (9.4%) increase. There are three categories of spending under this subactivity. The first category is Earth Sciences Project Support, which would receive $58.57 million. NSF requested an increase of $4.08 million (7.5%) for interdisciplinary emphasis in various areas, a joint initiative with the Ocean Sciences Subactivity, and additional support for university student research. The second category is Instrumentation and Facilities, for which $22.15 million is requested, an increase of $1.72 million (8.4%). This increase is targeted for the global seismic network and shared analytical facilities. The third category is Continental Dynamics, for which $9.33 million is requested, an increase of $1.94 million (26.3%) for "participation of U.S. scientists and engineers in a coordinated international continental drilling activity." The budget document states, "The funds requested above for the Earth Sciences Subactivity include $11.20 million, an increase of $300,000 for research on fundamental earthquake studies, an element of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program." Ocean Sciences Subactivity: NSF requested $205.59 million, which is a $12.22 million (6.3%) increase. There are three categories of spending under this subactivity. The first category is Ocean Sciences Research Support, which would receive $111.30 million. A $7.40 million (7.2%) increase is requested for the Coastal Ocean Processes Program, the RIDGE Mantle Electromagnetic and Tomography project, and focused studies of continental margins. The second category is Oceanographic Centers and Facilities, which would receive $54.20 million, an increase of $3.60 million (7.1%). This increase "will support continued ship and submersible operations, maintenance, and technical support, as well as instrumentation improvements and coordination functions." The third category is the Ocean Drilling Program, which would receive a $41.09 million budget, an increase of $1.22 million (3.1%), "to maintain the current level of effort for the program as operating costs increase." U.S. POLAR PROGRAMS: NSF is requesting a $234.88 million budget, which is a 6.1% or $13.48 million increase. The budget document states: "NSF conducts Polar Programs through two Activities: "U.S. Polar Research Programs includes funding for both arctic and antarctic research, as well as operations and science support. "U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support Activities funds logistics provided by the Department of Defense that contribute to the U.S. presence in Antarctica." NSF is requesting $62.60 million for this Activity, which is the current year budget. The Polar Research Programs budget would increase $13.48 million (8.5%) to $172.28 million. There are three Polar Research Program components. The first component is the U.S. Arctic Research Program, for which $31.57 million is requested, a $6.0 million (23.5%) increase. This increase is targeted toward Arctic System Science, Arctic Logistics, and other research projects. The second component is U.S. Antarctic Research Program, for which $31.54 is requested, an increase of $2.48 million (8.5%). This increase would support major research cruises, McMurdo science laboratory environmental research, and "support for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) program, a multidisciplinary program investigating the potential collapse of this massive ice sheet and its possible impact on sea level." The third component under this over-all budget is Operations and Science Support. A $109.17 million budget is requested, which is an increase of $5.00 million (4.8%). The increase is targeted to "various civilian contractor functions to support the antarctic research program," including increases in Research Support and Information Systems. ############### From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Feb 16 19:11:12 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13390; Thu, 16 Feb 95 19:11:08 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24213; 16 Feb 95 19:11 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21950; Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:06:13 PST Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 16:06:12 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Internet Newsgroup--sci.bio.conservation To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: Harvey Chinn Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Usenet News Group: Sci.bio.conservation Last year we had some discussion on this list about establishing a companion Usenet newsgroup to the CONSBIO mailing list, and establishing a gateway between the two. The majority of people responded that they would be uncomfortable with a connection to Usenet. However, there was interest enough among mailing list and Usenet members to establish a Conservation Biology newsgroup, since mailing lists like biodiv-l, bene, biodicen-l, consbio, res-econ, ecol-econ (please excuse me if I've left anyone out) don't seem to be well represented on Usenet. Sci.bio.conservation is now operational. You can post to this moderated Usenet group by sending a message to: conssub@u.washington.edu If you have questions about the newsgroup, or problems with posting, please send inquiries to: consreq@u.washington.edu The charter for the Sci.bio.conservation newsgroup is: CHARTER Sci.bio.conservation is a forum for conservation biologists and others interested in conservation biology. The specific goal of this newsgroup is to help develop the scientific and technical means for the protection, maintenance, and restoration of life on this planet, including: (1) the promotion of research and the maintenance of the highest standards of quality and ethics in research; (2) the publication and dissemination of scientific, technical, and management information; (3) the encouragement of communication and collaboration between conservation biology and other disciplines (including other biological and physical sciences, the behavioral and social sciences, economics, law and philosophy) that study and advise on conservation and natural resource issues; (4) the education, at all levels, of the public, of biologists, and of managers, in the principles of conservation biology. Because there are several Usenet newsgroups for discussion of environmental activism (in particular talk.environment), this newsgroup will generally not carry such discussions. DETAILS Preston Hardison, phd@u.washington.edu, will moderate the newsgroup, conssub@u.washington.edu for the submission address, consreq@u.washington.edu for the contact/requests address. Preston runs the CONSBIO mailing list. Sci.bio.conservation effectively duplicates and complements CONSBIO; these two forums may establish a gateway at some future time, depending on the wishes of the readers on both sides. For now, they are separate. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Feb 17 22:44:04 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21542; Fri, 17 Feb 95 22:44:03 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21702; 17 Feb 95 22:44 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01566; Fri, 17 Feb 95 19:40:46 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA29458; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 20:38:53 -0700 Message-Id: <9502180338.AA29458@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 20:38:53 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF budget for Academic Research Infrastructure Status: OR FY 96 Budget Request: NSF - Academic Research Infrastructure, Major Research Equipment FYI No. 29, February 16, 1995 Below are summaries of the Fiscal Year 1996 National Science Foundation budget requests for the Academic Research Infrastructure Activity and the Major Research Equipment Account. See FYI #22 for an overview of the entire NSF budget; as well as FYI #26, 28 and forthcoming FYI #30. ACADEMIC RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE: NSF requests a $100.00 million budget for this activity, which is a decrease of $18.13 million or $15.3%. This activity is separate from, and on a comparable level to, Research and Related Activities or Education and Human Resources. The budget document notes that the FY 1995 appropriation for Academic Research Infrastructure was $250 million. However, the entire appropriation was to be made available only if NSF requested $250 million for an interagency program for FY 1996, which it "elected not to initiate." As a result, the current available budget for this year (FY 1995) is $118.13 million. NSF proposes to equally divide the requested $100 million between facilities and instrumentation. NSF contends this request will maintain "an appropriate balance between support for research activities and infrastructure." MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT: NSF requests a $70.00 million budget for this account, which is a decrease of $56.00 million or 44.4%. This account is part of the Research and Related Activities budget. It provides construction funding for the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Observatory (LIGO) and the Gemini 8-Meter Optical/Infrared Telescopes. Operations and maintenance funding is provided through the Research and Related Activities account upon completion of construction. LIGO funding of $70.00 million is requested. The budget document states, "In order to maintain a timely and efficient construction schedule, support is concentrated in FY 1995 through 1997 before leveling off in FY 1998.... The funding level for LIGO will be $70 million in FY 1996, higher than the $55 million level specified in December to the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. This will enable the project to proceed on the revised planned schedule." The document also states: "Completion of construction is expected in FY 1998, with interferometer installation to be completed in FY 2000. First scientific observations will start in FY 2001. Operations costs are estimated to be $20.00 million per year and will be funded through the Physics Subactivity in the R&RA [Research and Related Activities] account." NSF estimates a total construction cost of $272.10 million. Gemini funding is not requested for FY 1996, since the full U.S. contribution was provided in prior year appropriations. The budget document states: "First light on Mauna Kea is scheduled for July, 1998, with the Chilean telescope following two years later. Operations costs are estimated at approximately $11.0 million per year for both telescopes" of which the U.S. share is 50%. NSF estimates a total construction cost of $176.00 million, with the U.S. paying half. The budget document also provides a status report on the Green Bank Telescope, for which all $74.5 million in construction funding was provided in a previous appropriation. The budget document states that "despite the progress [described above], certain original FY 1996 milestones, such as completion of the feed arm, were delayed. Therefore, completion of the telescope has stretched-out into FY 1996, primarily because of delays on the part of the prime contractor in completing detailed engineering drawings. These obstacles are now under control, and the project remains within its original cost limits." ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Feb 17 22:45:37 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21548; Fri, 17 Feb 95 22:45:35 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21850; 17 Feb 95 22:45 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01575; Fri, 17 Feb 95 19:42:18 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA29478; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 20:40:25 -0700 Message-Id: <9502180340.AA29478@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 20:40:24 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF budget for Education Cc: jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Status: OR FY 1996 Budget Request: NSF - Education and Human Resources FYI No. 30, February 17, 1995 The National Science Foundation requested $599.00 million for the Education and Human Resources Directorate for FY 1996. This is a decrease of $6.97 million, or 1.2%, from the current year budget of $605.97 million. Declines in various programs are usually small. NSF Director Neal Lane explained in a budget briefing last week that a period of evaluation was now appropriate. The seven activities this directorate funds are: EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM REFORM: The budget would decline by $1.09 million (1.1%) from $96.44 million to $95.35 million. The budget document states: "Although the FY 1996 request...represents a slight reduction from the FY 1995 level, the USI [Urban Systemic Initiatives] will be able to sustain their activities and the RSI [Rural Systemic Initiatives] will provide up to two implementation awards. SSI [Statewide Systemic Initiatives] will begin its sixth year and several states, from the first cohort, will move into PHASE II where exemplary activities will receive support for an additional 2 - 5 years." EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH: The budget would decline by $1.01 million (2.7%) from $36.92 million to $35.91 million. The budget document states the request "will enable the Activity to continue supporting systemic improvements in the science and technology enterprises of the 19 participating jurisdictions at the FY 1995 level. There will be a slight decrease in the number of awards made to EPSCoR programs jointly funded in the Foundation and innovation awards under EPSCoR's Experimental Systemic Initiative (EIS)." ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND INFORMAL EDUCATION: The budget would decline by $1.60 million (0.8%) from $195.75 million to $194.15 million. Within this activity are four subactivity budgets. The first subactivity, Student Support, would remain unchanged at $10.00 million. The second subactivity, Curriculum Development, would decline by $0.60 million (1.2%) from $48.78 million to $48.18 million. The third subactivity is Teacher Enhancement and Development, which would decline $1.00 million (1.0%) from $100.97 million to $99.97 million. Informal Science Education, the fourth subactivity, remains unchanged at $36.00 million. The budget document states, "There will be a slight decrease in the number of awards for new materials development and teacher enhancement projects." UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: The budget would decline by $0.82 million (1.0%) from $84.25 million to $83.43 million. There are two subactivity budgets. Curriculum and Laboratory Development would decline $0.55 million (0.9%) from $59.15 million to $58.60 million. Teacher and Faculty Development would decline by $0.27 million (1.1%) from $25.10 million to $24.83 million. The budget document states: "The FY 1996 budget...will result in a modest reduction in the number of awards made." GRADUATE EDUCATION: The budget remains unchanged at $66.79 million. The budget document states: "The current level of active Graduate Fellows and Graduate Minority Fellows, will be sustained at 2,360 during 1995-1996.... "Graduate Research Traineeships will be supported at $13.00 million, unchanged from FY 1995. These funds will support the out-year commitments for about 520 traineeship positions awarded in prior years. No new traineeship positions are planned." HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT: The budget would decline by $1.95 million (2.5%) from $76.75 million to $74.80 million. There are four subactivities. Precollege Education spending would decline $0.45 million (2.8%) from $16.28 million to $15.83 million. Undergraduate Student Support remains unchanged at $26.41 million. The third subactivity, Research and Education Infrastructure, declines by $1.25 million (7.9%) from $15.79 million to $14.54 million. The fourth subactivity, Opportunities for Women and Persons with Disabilities, declines $0.25 million (1.4%) from $18.27 million to $18.02 million. The budget document states: "The FY 1996 Budget...will decrease support available for new projects." RESEARCH, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATIONS: The budget would decline by $0.50 million (1.0%) from $49.07 million to $48.57 million. There are three subactivities. The Research request is unchanged at $13.03 million. The Evaluation Subactivity request is also unchanged at $10.27 million. The Technology Utilization budget declines $0.50 million (1.9%) from $25.77 million to $25.27 million. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Feb 17 22:49:06 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21553; Fri, 17 Feb 95 22:49:05 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22274; 17 Feb 95 22:49 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01587; Fri, 17 Feb 95 19:45:25 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA29510; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 20:43:32 -0700 Message-Id: <9502180343.AA29510@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 20:43:32 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: new chair for NSF appropriations committee Status: OR Bond Chairs Senate VA/HUD/IA Appropriations Subcommittee FYI No. 31, February 17, 1995 In the 104th Congress, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA/HUD/Independent Agencies is chaired by Christopher Bond of Missouri. This subcommittee has control over the purse strings of the National Science Foundation and NASA as well as housing and veterans' programs. Bond and his House counterpart, Jerry Lewis (R-California) are key players in determining the fiscal year 1996 budgets for those agencies. Bond replaces Democrat Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who gained attention during her tenure as chair with appropriations report language directing NSF to perform more "strategic research." Mikulski is now the ranking minority member. The new subcommittee roster follows: Republicans: Democrats: Christopher Bond (MO) Barbara Mikulski (MD) Phil Gramm (TX) Patrick Leahy (VT) Conrad Burns (MT) J. Bennet Johnston (LA) Ted Stevens (AK)* Frank Lautenberg (NJ) Richard Shelby (AL)* Bob Kerrey (NE) Robert Bennett (UT)* *new Member of Subcommittee The subcommittee's address is: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee U.S. Senate SD-142 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-7211 Bond is described by "Congressional Quarterly" as conservative, though not strongly partisan. As a member of the agriculture and transportation appropriations subcommittees, he has been involved in obtaining highway and agricultural funding for Missouri. He has also worked on housing legislation, and successfully encouraged the government to buy more fighter planes manufactured in his state. An analysis of his 1993 voting record shows that Bond voted with the President 31 percent of the time, with his party 83 percent of the time, and with the conservative coalition 83 percent of the time. (This ranking, determined by "Congressional Quarterly" magazine, measures how often a Member voted with a majority of Republicans and Southern Democrats against a majority of all other Democrats.) Bond has been consistent in his support of the space station in recent years, while continuously opposing the SSC. ############### From smartin@lternet.edu Sun Feb 19 18:19:07 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25661; Sun, 19 Feb 95 18:19:06 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15284; 19 Feb 95 18:19 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07935; Sun, 19 Feb 95 15:18:13 PST Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 15:18:13 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Letter re: NBS FYI To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, erg@lternet.washington.edu, lab@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR > > >From the ABS Public Affairs Committee: > > > > Scientific programs in the Department of Interior have been targeted > > for elimination by certain Members of the U.S. Congress. The following > > letter which defends these critical programs will be delivered to the > > Members of Congress by March 1. IF YOU WISH TO CO-SIGN THIS LETTER, > > PLEASE CONTACT SUSAN MURRAY (phone 202-547-9009, fax 202-547-9022, > > internet smurray@audubon.org) WITH YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION > > AND ADDRESS BY COB FEBRUARY 24 . Thank you. > > > > * * * * > > > > To All Members of Congress > > > > Dear ______________: > > > > As biologists, ecologists, and other members of the scientific > > community, we are writing to express concern for the future of science at > > the Department of the Interior. We understand that the research, survey, > > and monitoring functions performed by the National Biological Service > > ("NBS") are in jeopardy on both budgetary and substantive grounds. > > Elimination of these critical functions would be a short-sighted mistake > > with long-term consequences, such as an inevitable increase in > > "train-wreck" situations where the desire to rescue endangered species > > will conflict with needs to extract and use other natural resources. > > > > The mission of the NBS is to work with others to provide the > > scientific understanding and technologies needed to manage the Nation's > > biological resources. Although the NBS is often equated with surveys of > > endangered species on public and private land, such surveys are only a > > minor function. Its primary functions are to: inventory the nation's > > biological resources, determine how those resources can be managed more > > effectively, monitor populations of birds and other wildlife, and, through > > cooperative research units at universities across the country, transfer > > information to land managers, graduate students, and others. Many of > > these functions fulfill the federal government's responsibilities under > > the public trust doctrine and congressional mandates. In the case of > > migratory birds, for example, this responsibility dates back to 1916, when > > the United States signed a treaty with Canada. > > > > The NBS was created in 1993 to consolidate Department of the Interior > > science programs into a single bureau. This had the effect of improving > > the quality of science by separating research from regulatory and > > management actions. It also saves money, because the NBS has one of the > > lowest ratios of administrative-to-program-costs of any Interior bureau. > > > > Some Members of Congress have charged that the NBS uses untrained, > > biased volunteers who trespass on private property, but Secretary Babbitt > > recently issued an administrative order to clarify that NBS activities on > > private land must have the permission of the land owners. Other Members > > are concerned that gathering biological data can impact property values. > > The NBS is not a regulatory agency, and, rather than diminish property > > values, data gathered by the NBS will contribute to sound, preventative > > resource management. > > > > Maintaining and enhancing science at the Interior Department is a > > matter of national interest. It is only through unbiased, > > professional-quality research, surveys, and monitoring that > > everyone--including industry, private land owners, and the public--can > > avoid the crises that arise from incomplete information and make > > enlightened decisions about management of natural resources. Any savings > > to be achieved through elimination of the NBS would be short-term and > > quickly dwarfed by the true long-term costs, both financial and > > ecological. > > > > We encourage Congress not only to maintain but increase support for > > the research, survey, and monitoring functions carried out by the NBS. A > > "know- nothing" approach to the Nation's biological resources will do far > > more harm than good. Thank you. > > > > > > Jan Beyea, Ph.D. > > Vice President, Science Policy > > Chief Scientist > > National Audubon Society > > New York, New York > > > > David Blockstein, Ph.D > > Chair, Ornithological Council > > Washington, D.C. > > > > James H. Cook, Ph.D. > > Staff Scientist > > National Audubon Society > > New York, NY > > > > Susan R. Drennan, Ph.D. > > Vice President for Ornithology > > National Audubon Society > > New York, NY > > > > Thomas Eisner, Ph.D. > > Cornell University > > Ithaca, New York > > > > George H. Fenwick, Ph.D. > > President > > American Bird Conservancy > > Washington, D.C. > > > > Wayne A. Hoffman > > Research Scientist > > National Audubon Society > > New York, NY > > > > Stephen W. Kress, Ph.D. > > Director, Maine Coast Sanctuaries > > National Audubon Society > > Medomak, ME > > > > Michael L. Morrison > > Adjunct Associate Professor of Wildlife Biology > > School of Renewable Natural Resources > > University of Arizona > > Tucson, AZ > > > > J.P. Myers, Ph.D. > > Director, W. Alton Jones Foundation > > Charlottesville, VA > > > > Peter H. Raven, Ph.D. > > Director > > Missouri Botanical Gardens > > St. Louis, MO > > > > Stephen M. Russell, Ph.D. > > Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology > > University of Arizona > > Tucson, AZ > > > > Carl Safina, Ph.D. > > Senior Ecologist > > National Audubon Society > > New York, NY > > > > Edward O. Wilson > > Tellegrino University Professor > > Harvard University > > Cambridge, MA > > > > * * * * > > > > OTHERS TO BE ADDED > > From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Feb 20 14:35:13 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28455; Mon, 20 Feb 95 14:35:11 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa14049; 20 Feb 95 14:35 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11858; Mon, 20 Feb 95 11:35:10 PST Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 11:35:10 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Sender: Stephanie Martin Reply-To: Stephanie Martin Subject: Newsletter Submission Instructions To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, NET@lternet.washington.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: OR LTER Network News Submission Instructions ---------------------------------------------------- TEXT SUBMISSIONS: It works best if you send your contribution to me in text format via electronic mail or, preferably, in binary form via ftp (see step-by-step instructions below) with a backup hard copy via regular mail (including any special formatting, such as super- and subscripts). If you prefer, send me a 3.5" disk with the word processing program used noted. I have the capability to read in most standard PC and Mac formats. PHOTOS, FIGURES, ILLUSTRATIONS: Ideally, I need original high-resolution line art (original laser print or a disk file with software used noted) and BLACK and WHITE prints of photographs. However, if you have original negatives or color slides, they can usually be converted successfully (depending on the quality of the image). *Color prints are the LEAST desirable* CREDIT: Please provide author/photographer/illustrator credit (full name or exactly as it should appear) and *brief* caption or legend information where needed. Also note whether I may keep illustrative material for our files or if you would like it returned. Thank you! Stephanie Martin Editor, LTER Network News - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SENDING TEXT OR GRAPHIC FILES VIA FTP (These instructions assume that you are connecting to LTERnet as an anonymous user.) To send text or graphic files, follow these steps: If you are using DOS or UNIX, first go to the directory in which the file you wish to send resides, then: 1. Type/enter "ftp lternet.edu" 2. When the``Name'' prompt appears, type/enter ``anonymous'' 3. The message that a guest login is OK appears. At the "Password" prompt type/enter the "indent" or "tab" key followed by your e-mail address if you are an anonymous user (or your password if you have an LTERnet account). The address will not appear on your screen as you type it in. 4. At the ftp prompt (ftp>), type/enter "bin" (for binary) to ensure the file arrives as formatted. 5. Type/enter "cd /home/ftp/pub/upload", then "ls" to view the subdirectories. You should see one for each site ("and", "bnz", "cdr", etc.) the Network Office ("net"), and "others" for non-LTER contributors. 6. Set the path to the subdirectory for your site (I'm using the abbreviation for H.J. Andrews, "and", as an example.) by typing "cd and". 7. Type/enter "send filename" (or "get filename" if you are retrieving a file). The message "Transfer Complete" indicates that the file has probably transferred successfully. To doublecheck, type "ls" to view a listing of current files and see if the one you just sent is there. 8. Type ``quit'' to disconnect from lternet.edu. 9. Notify me via e-mail (sMartin@LTERnet.edu) that the file (include name) has been transferred and into which subdirectory. If you encounter difficulties, consult with your local computer technician or check with me and I'll work with Ray Bero at the Network Office to find a solution. ------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE NOTE: I cannot delete files from your site subdirectory in this temporary publications files exchange area unless I have placed them there. To avoid the accumulation of old files, please remember to remove any you "own" once we have agreed on their final form for publications projects. Also, please do not use this area for general file exchange--a scratch directory has been established for that purpose. Thank you! From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Feb 20 12:17:49 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27509; Mon, 20 Feb 95 12:17:47 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab24030; 20 Feb 95 12:17 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11022; Mon, 20 Feb 95 09:16:08 PST Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 09:16:08 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: REU funding To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: ebehrens@nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: I've been receiving an uncommon number of requests for information on which LTER sites offer REU funding. It would be helpful to have a list here at the Network Office of those sites participating in the program, both for responding to such requests and to note in the newsletter if space allows. I am aware only of the Sevilleta program, which was renewed recently. Thank you for your assistance. (Note I am also sending this query to DEB.) >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications/Public Information CFR, AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Feb 20 13:46:03 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27997; Mon, 20 Feb 95 13:46:02 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26891; 20 Feb 95 13:45 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11543; Mon, 20 Feb 95 10:45:45 PST Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 10:45:44 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: REMINDER--Submission Deadline, Spring '95 Network News To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, NET@lternet.washington.edu Cc: mallen@nsf.gov, jroskosk@nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Status: OR NOTE: All material (including text, photos, artwork, etc.) is due Tuesday,= =20 February 28, 1995 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear LTER PIs, students, staff, et al.: Below is the final topics and contributors list for the next LTER Network News, with the status of each item noted at the right. If you have any corrections, late-breaking news, recent publication citations, or calendar items to add, please let me know right away. =20 This message will be followed by a separate message with instructions on making submissions.=20 Thanks in advance for your contributions. Stephanie Martin Editor, LTER Network News Spring/Summer 1995=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D LTER Network News Topics & Contributors (status noted) General Features:=20 =09Incoming Chair Jim Gosz looks ahead through 1997--CONFIRMED Site Features=20 =09North Temperate Lakes (J.Magnuson or T.Kratz)--CONFIRMED=20 =09Sevilleta (B. Milne or B. Parmenter)--CONFIRMED Site News =20 =09HFR Lab Upgrade (R. Boone)--CONFIRMED =09VCR News (B. Hayden)--RECEIVED =09PAL News (R. Ross)--CONFIRMED=20 =09CWT News (S. Donaldson)--RECEIVED =09CDR News (D. Tilman)--RECEIVED =09CPR News (D. Coffin)--RECEIVED =09REU Program (several sites, some RECEIVED) =09Site on-line LTER Datasets (R. Ingersoll) RECEIVED Network Office=20 =09LTER/EXEC Teleconference (Vande Castle, photo)--CONFIRMED =09Newsletter readership 1987-1995 (SM)--COMPLETED =09Network on-line resources (Compiled by SM)--IN PROCESS =09Site License--Kudos to G. Stought + photo (SM) Committees =20 =09Climate (D. Greenland, chair)--*NOT* CONFIRMED =09Data Management (J.Brunt) CONFIRMED =09Graduate Students (J. Greenberg) *NOT* CONFIRMED=20 =09Publications (B. Hayden) *NOT CONFIRMED*--MAY USE REPORT TO LTER/EXEC=20 =09Synthesis (B. Wharton) *NOT* CONFIRMED National=20 =09USFS - NSF MOU (Douglas Ryan,USFS)--RECEIVED + photo =09NBS=D5 Information Infrastructure (NBII) (Trudy Harlow, NBS)--CONFIRMED= =20 =09NSF Special Competition Awards-Recipients & Topics--RECEIVED =09Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis (R. Ross)--CONFIRMED=20 =09U of WA/U of WI Graduate Freshwater Research Traineeships RECEIVED =09LMER Program (Irvine SCOPE workshop, new directory =09=09available)--J. Hobbie or D. Scanlon)--some RECEIVED =09EPA maps available (Jim Omernik, Corvallis lab)--CONFIRMED =09Any other agency collaborations to report? International=20 =09Collaboration with Hungary (update re server--Hayden?) *NOT* CONFIRMED= =20 =09ILTER activities, 1995 mtg. in Hungary (Franklin/Gosz) *NOT* CONFIRMED = =20 =09ERIN, Australian program (excerpted by SM)--RECEIVED =09=09Trip report (Vande Castle, Nottrott) *NOT* CONFIRMED =09Other international collaborations?=20 Workshops=20 =09Reports on recent workshops -any?=20 =09News on upcoming workshops (MORE SPECIFIC INFO NEEDED): =09 Spring '95 xroots agroecosystem workshop (C. Bledsoe)=20 =09 7/95 conservative tracer addition to streams (D'Angelo) Publications (*VERY* FEW RECEIVED!) =20 =09Recent site publications (ONLY IN PRESS or PUBLISHED, please)=20 =09Recent pubns & publicity on LTER program and sites (compiled by SM)=20 =09Recent publications of interest (compiled by SM) Calendar (compiled by SM--PLEASE SEND IN ITEMS!) =09Upcoming EXEC, CC & All Sci meetings (Compiled by SM) =09NSF program deadlines and target dates (Compiled by SM) =09Other funding opportunity deadlines (Compiled by SM) =09Other workshops and meetings of interest to LTER? =09 (need dates, location, contact name, ph or e-mail) NEXT ISSUE, FALL 1995:=20 =09Outgoing chair Jerry Franklin reflects on 15 years of LTER--CONFIRMED =09Site features: PAL and MCM (Unconfirmed) =09Other suggestions? From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Feb 22 09:20:46 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05425; Wed, 22 Feb 95 09:20:45 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab06546; 22 Feb 95 9:20 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24839; Wed, 22 Feb 95 06:17:56 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02738; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 07:16:04 -0700 Message-Id: <9502221416.AA02738@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 07:16:04 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: EPA funding opportunities Status: OR Subject: EPA Grants Program Announcement I recently received a copy of the announcement for the EPA 1995 Grants for Research. The closing date is April 17, 1995, 4:00pm EST. Research topics of interest are: Human Health Risk Assessment [Kevin Garrahan (202)260-2588], Indoor Air Quality in Large Office Buildings [Ross Highsmith (919) 541-7828 and Kevin Teichman (202) 260-7669], Air Pollutants [Ila Cote (919) 541-3644 for particulates, James Vickery (919) 541-2184 for ozone and Jarry Cupitt (919) 541-2454 for toxics], Regional Hydrologic Vulnerability to Global Climate Change [Barbara Levinson (202) 260-5983 and Joel Scheraga (202)260-4029]. Application forms and instructions are available from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Office of Exploratory Research (8703) 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 260-7445 General information at (202) 260-7473 FAX (202)260-0211 A second solitication is going out jointly with the National Science Foundation for areas of interest to both agencies, i.e., water and watersheds, valuation and environmental policy; and technology for a sustainable environment (pollution prevention). That announcement is not on STIS yet but will forward it as soon as it is. jim From mallen@nsf.gov Wed Feb 22 13:56:06 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07037; Wed, 22 Feb 95 13:56:04 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa13966; 22 Feb 95 13:56 EST Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27444; Wed, 22 Feb 95 10:53:48 PST Received: from [128.150.59.31] (c4m21.cise.nsf.gov) by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA22112 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 22 Feb 1995 13:51:53 -0500 X-Sender: mallen@popsrvr.nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 13:51:56 -0500 To: pi@lternet.edu From: Mike Allen Subject: Continuing INcrements and programs in the Year of Chaos Status: OR LTER PI's, For your information on your continuiing grants, see below. Also, to let you'all know what's coming down the line that will be appropriate for the group. Please keep up on STIS for the final deadlines as they may change. Also, please feel free to drop me a line if you have a question. The Water and Watershed program has been approved with a 17 April deadline. Penny Firth is the PO. The TECO (terrestrial ecology/global change in a broad sense) program has also been approved with a 17 April deadline. Cliff Dahm is the PO. Preliminary approval has been given for a Cross-Site and Internationalization Program which is going through the mill. The tentative deadline date for it is 1 June. I will be administering it. Unfortunately, there is an inadequate budget to allow us to run an augmentation program this year. Sincerely, Mike Allen >Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 12:25:07 EST >From: jroskosk@nsf.gov >Subject: Continuing INcrements in the Year of Chaos > > Greetings: A reminder to all programs. This will be an > insane year with all the last minute program announcements, > panels (TECO, Cross Site, Water and Watershed etc.), and > resulting actions. So letters or calls reminding PIs with > continuing grants to get their FY95 request into us, should > specify a VERY EARLY CUT OFF DATE, and certainly no > later than JUNE 1. > > Joann From jgosz@lternet.washington.edu Sun Feb 26 18:54:39 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19551; Sun, 26 Feb 95 18:54:37 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28470; 26 Feb 95 18:54 EST Received: from dirt.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25293; Sun, 26 Feb 95 15:52:57 PST Received: by dirt.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02124; Sun, 26 Feb 95 15:52:14 PST Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 15:52:14 PST From: James Gosz Message-Id: <9502262352.AA02124@dirt.lternet.washington.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: funding opportunity - Terrestrial Ecology/Global Change Status: OR NSF/DOE/NASA/USDA JOINT PROGRAM ON TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY AND GLOBAL CHANGE INTRODUCTION In recent decades extensive efforts have been made to characterize and monitor the distribution and state of terrestrial ecosystems. Presently, what is most lacking is an understanding of the susceptibility of such ecosystems to change from multiple and interacting factors, and a quantification of the processes regulating change. Key uncertainties are how ecosystems will react to change, and how such changes may influence global phenomena. It is unclear from existing information how species or ecosystems will carry out essential functions in the future, on scales from the individual cell of an individual organism, to ecosystems, to landscapes and subcontinental regions. Without the ability to make such projections, implications for the sustainability of ecosystems as a support system for humans remain uncertain. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION In concert with the U.S. Global Change Research Program and with the intent of enhancing interagency collaboration, NSF, DOE , NASA, and the USDA seek to augment terrestrial ecological research with this special competition. This activity extends the current Global Change programs in NSF on Ecological Rates of Change (EROC), Water, Energy, Atmosphere, Vegetation and Earth (WEAVE), Land Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) and Ecological Diversity (ED); in DOE on programs on Ecosystem Research (PER) and Terrestrial Carbon Processes (TCP); in NASA on the program for Ecological Processes and Modeling; in USDA on programs in ecosystem structure and function and on Plant Responses to the Environment (PRE). This competition will allow more comprehensive research on: ecosystem responses to combined effects of elevated CO2, temperature, water, and nutrients; obtaining an understanding of the combined effects of global forcing and landscape-scale processes on the future structure and distribution of ecosystems; potential effects of global land-use changes on the biodiversity (e.g., species diversity, genetic diversity, habitat diversity) of managed and unmanaged ecosystems; and the reciprocal influence of ecological processes on atmosphere and climate. The goal for this research is to improve the understanding of how species, ecological characteristics and processes, and ecosystems are related to global change, and to enhance capabilities to predict consequences of multiple influences (e.g., when the physical environment and ecological parameters change simultaneously). The research also will increase the capability for extending experimentally-derived information to landscape and larger scales (e.g., regions, river basins). To achieve this scientific understanding, innovative field experiments will be needed to address interactions of ecological processes and combinations of effects related to global change, and to relate observed effects to causative factors. Also, to assure predictability, retrospective analyses and new modeling efforts will be needed for extrapolating information to other systems and across multiple scales that will contribute to the development of regional and subcontinental models. Agencies involved in this interagency announcement encourage multidisciplinary proposals involving companion experimental, retrospective and modeling efforts to provide critically needed data and parameters for improved predictions of global change phenomena in the following, equally important areas: (1) CO2 and Other Trace Gases Related to Climate Change The combined results of process, observation, and global modeling studies strongly suggest that the terrestrial ecosystems of the mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere continents must be taking up and storing significant amounts of carbon each year, yet we do not know where it is going, how long this might continue, and whether this storage will be permanent or only temporary. Improved databases, experiments and process models are needed: To understand complex interactions that control exchange of CO2 and other trace gases between the biosphere and the atmosphere for representative terrestrial ecosystems; To quantify carbon content of terrestrial ecosystems, provide databases on sizes of terrestrial sources and sinks of carbon, and estimate how they are changing; To provide process-based information for biogeochemical cycling components of Earth System Models. (2) Consequences of Global Change on Ecosystems It is hypothesized that ecosystems are changing in response to climate changes of the past century. Linking these changes to climate presents unprecedented challenges because many other types of change are occurring simultaneously. There is a need to relate observed changes to likely causes using experimental approaches that examine phenomena at multiple scales. Also, the research needs to provide the quantitative information for models that generalize from selected study sites to broader areas at local, regional and global levels. The focus of research on consequences should be on improving the predictive understanding of how the structure and function of terrestrial ecosystems will respond to human-induced global change, including climatic and atmospheric changes. The research should improve the scientific basis for assessing the vulnerability of different ecosystems to global changes, including the potential beneficial and adverse effects of such changes on ecosystem components and processes of utilitarian and/or intrinsic value to humans. This capability should also include projecting potential ecological effects of future environments that many ecological communities may not yet have experienced. Experimental and modeling research is encouraged: To identify and quantify the mechanism(s) or process(es) controlling observed responses to altered climatic and atmospheric conditions; To determine how biological and ecological responses are manifested at higher levels of ecosystem hierarchy (populations, communities, ecosystem, landscape) of terrestrial environments; To determine how the responses and the controlling mechanisms can be detected and measured; To understand and predict how ecosystem processes (e.g., productivity) are affected by combinations of altered atmospheric CO2 and other trace gas concentrations, different climate conditions, changing resource constraints (e.g., nutrients, water and light), and changing land-use patterns (e.g., urban/suburban sprawl, conversion of forest to other uses, restoring wetlands); To identify changes in structural components (e.g., landscape pattern, community structure, architectural properties of vegetation), caused by different atmospheric, climatic, and land-use activities that will predict the future structure and distribution of ecosystems; To understand and predict the effects of combinations of altered CO2, climate conditions, changing resource constraints and land-use change on biodiversity (e.g., genetic diversity, species diversity, habitat diversity). (3) Ecosystem Feedbacks to Global Change It will be important to connect experimental results to evaluations of potential future impacts (or benefits) in terms of changes in function, structure, and distribution of ecosystems, including how changes in system processes or species' properties might affect characteristics of managed and unmanaged ecosystems. Research is encouraged on how changes in species composition, ecological properties and processes influence the ability of managed and unmanaged ecosystems, for example: To control or modify physical factors such as albedo, regional precipitation, wind speed, and particulate movement in water and air; To control biogeochemical cycling, nutrient retention, and trace gas fluxes that affect soil fertility, water quality, and atmospheric composition. Research proposed for this competition is encouraged to take advantage of existing programs, research sites or data sets of other agencies with multidisciplinary efforts. Examples of such existing efforts are: NASA field campaigns (FIFE, BOREAS), DOE's National Environmental Research Parks (NERPS), FACE study sites and Program on Ecosystem Research (PER) sites, NSF's Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites and Land Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) sites, and USDA's Management Systems Evaluation Areas (MSEA). WHO MAY SUBMIT All U.S. institutions eligible to receive support from DOE, NASA, USDA, and the NSF may submit proposals in response to this announcement. The NSF also has express statutory authority to support research performed by other Federal agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). The Foundation ordinarily does not encourage research proposals from other Federal agencies or FFRDCs; however, for this particular announcement the Foundation will consider proposals for research and logistic support activities of other Federal agencies or FFRDCs directed to the goals of special national and international research programs for which the Foundation bears special responsibility. Scientists from other federal agencies or FFRDCs are encouraged to participate by developing collaborations with university scientists. Any proposals under this category should not include costs related to Civil Service Salaries for federal scientists. AWARDS Proposals may request funding for projects with a duration not to exceed three years and a total budget not to exceed $500,000. It is expected that 12-15 awards will be made subject to the advice of reviewers and availability of funds. The NSF is the lead agency in this effort and although proposals submitted to this Interagency Announcement will be sent to NSF, the participating agencies will jointly administer the program throughout the entire phase from the receipt of proposals until the close-out of awards. Final selection of awardees by the agencies will be determined by the review panel's recommendations and programmatic considerations. Each award will be supported by a single agency. Overall estimated amount of funding is $ 6 M, depending upon the availability of funds from each agency. Each agency supporting an award will act as the sole administrative unit for that award although all successful awards will be identified with the joint effort. Principal Investigators may be requested to modify their budgets and work plans to comply with special requirements of the particular agency supporting their award. Individual agency contacts are listed later in this announcement. The Principal Investigator of an award will be requested to travel to Washington, DC for a meeting of all Principal Investigators to discuss additional collaboration, sharing of information and integration of efforts among successful projects and other appropriate efforts discussed previously. AWARD ADMINISTRATION NSF awards made as a result of this document will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Condition" or FDP-II, "Federal Demonstration Project." Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publication Unit, phone (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail (Internet: pubs@nsf.gov). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 88-47, July 1989), for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO is (202) 783-3238 for subscription information. USDA award authority for this program is contained in section 2(b) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)). Under this program, subject to the availability of funds, the Secretary may award competitive research grants, for periods not to exceed five years, for the support of research projects to further the programs of the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Proposals may be submitted by any State agricultural experiment station, college, private organization, corporation, or individual. Proposals from scientists at non-United States organizations will not be considered for support. Pursuant to Section 712 of Public Law 103-330 (the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995), funds available in fiscal year 1995 to pay indirect costs on research grants awarded competitively by CSREES may not exceed 14 per centum of the total Federal funds provided under each award. In addition, pursuant to Sec. 719(b) of Public Law 103-330, in the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized to be purchased with the funds provided under this Program, entities are encouraged to purchase only American-made equipment or products. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS The NSF, DOE, NASA , and USDA use similar criteria in review of competitive grant proposals, for example, as described in the NSF document "Grant Proposal Guide" (GPG, NSF 94-2). Proposals will be evaluated through a merit review process conducted jointly by the participating agencies based on the agencies' criteria cited above. The merit review process will center upon the following criteria: 1) Research performance competence - This criterion relates to the capability of the investigator(s), the technical soundness of the proposed approach, and the adequacy of the institutional resources available. 2) Intrinsic merit of the research - This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the research will lead to new discoveries or fundamental advances within its field of science, or have substantial impact on progress in that field or in other scientific fields. 3) Utility or relevance of the research - Proposals will be evaluated with respect to their relevance to the terms in one or more of the three important areas of this Announcement described in the Program Description section. This criterion also is used to assess the likelihood that the research can contribute to the achievement of a goal that is extrinsic or in addition to that of the research field itself, and thereby serve as the basis for new or improved technology or assist in the solution of societal problems. 4) Collaboration with other efforts - Attention will be given to each proposal's plan for building upon existing research capabilities and/or databases, collaboration with other university and federal efforts, and potential for additional future development. Proposals should identify linkages or joint efforts between experimental and modeling activities. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT To provide a consistent format for the review process for this interagency announcement, the preparation and submission of proposals must follow the guidelines given in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF 94-2. Note especially that there is a limit of 15 pages for the Project Description section; visual materials and tables count toward the 15 page limit. No letters of endorsement or other appendices are allowed. Required NSF forms are found in GPG which can be obtained from: NSF Forms and Publication Unit 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 Tel: 703-306-1130 FAX: 703-644-4278 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION Eighteen copies of the formal proposal must be placed in a single package clearly marked "Interagency Terrestrial Ecology and Global Change Initiative" and mailed to: Ecosystem Studies Program Division of Environmental Biology, Rm. 635 National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 Proposals must be received by NSF no later than April 17. Proposals received after the deadline will be returned without further consideration. The PI is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the proposal as submitted. CONTACTS NSF: Dr. Cliff Dahm Dr. David Vleck Division of Environmental Biology Division of Integrative and National Science Foundation Neuroscience 4201 Wilson Blvd. National Science Foundation Arlington, VA 22230 4201 Wilson Blvd. Telephone: 703-306-1479 Arlington, VA 22230 Fax: 703-306-0367 Telephone: 703-306-1421 email: cdahm@nsf.gov Fax: 703-306-0349 email: dvleck@nsf.gov DOE: Dr. Jerry W. Elwood U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health & Environmental Research ER-74, GTN Washington, D.C. 20585 Telephone: 301-903-4583 Fax: 301-903-8519 email: Jerry.Elwood@mailgw.er.doe.gov NASA:Dr. Diane Wickland Ecological Processes and Modeling Program Office of Mission to Planet Earth National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546 Telephone: 202-358-0272 Fax: 202-358-2771 email: dwickland@mtpe.hq.nasa.gov USDA: Dr. Timothy C. Strickland National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program U.S. Department of Agriculture Ag Box 2241 Washington, D.C. 20250-2241 Telephone: 202-401-4082 Fax: 202-401-6488 email: tstrickland@morrill.esusda.gov From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Feb 26 19:01:45 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19559; Sun, 26 Feb 95 19:01:44 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00176; 26 Feb 95 19:01 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25369; Sun, 26 Feb 95 16:00:46 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA11512; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 16:58:53 -0700 Message-Id: <9502262358.AA11512@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 16:58:53 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Congress/NSF info (fyi) Status: OR > From whatsnew@aps.org Fri Feb 24 22:55:14 1995 > Received: by aps.org (5.65/1.35) > id AA01009; Fri, 24 Feb 95 15:49:12 -0500 > Date: Fri, 24 Feb 95 15:49:12 -0500 > From: whatsnew@aps.org (What's New) > Message-Id: <9502242049.AA01009@aps.org> > Subject: What's New for Feb 24, 1995 > Apparently-To: wn_readers > Status: OR > > WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park Friday, 24 Feb 95 Washington, DC > > 1. SMITHSONIAN'S "SCIENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE" TO UNDERGO REVISION! > At a National Press Club luncheon yesterday, the new Smithsonian > Secretary, I. Michael Heyman, acknowledged that the controversial > exhibit lacks balance. In November, the Council of the American > Physical Society asked president Burton Richter "to convey its > profound dismay" over the Museum of American History exhibit (WN > 18 Nov 94). In a letter to Heyman, Richter characterized the > exhibit as "a portrayal that trivializes the accomplishments of > science and exaggerates any negative consequences." He offered > the help of the APS in developing a more balanced portrayal. In > response, Heyman invited a group of APS officers to meet with > museum officials in early February. The group included Richter > and current APS President, Kumar Patel. Responding to questions > after his Press Club speech, Heyman said he is sympathetic to the > concerns of the physicists and agrees that changes are needed. > > 2. RESCISSIONS: TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS CUT TO PAY PENTAGON'S BILLS! > The first spending bill passed by the Newt House was a taste of > what to expect in the coming weeks. The Emergency Supplemental > Appropriation for DOD was combined with offsetting rescissions > totaling $2.9B, about half of which was taken from "low-priority" > non-defense programs. "Low-priority," it seems, includes NIST's > Advanced Technology Program, hit for $107M, as well as Clean Coal > Technology ($50M), environmental clean up ($100M) and wind tunnel > construction ($400M). While in DOD, the Technology Reinvestment > Program was hit for $537M, and high-definition display systems > for $15M. "To those who think far more can be done in the area of > rescissions," David Drier (R-CA) promised, "that day is coming." > What has already come is a wild scramble by agencies to commit > current funds before rampaging budget cutters unappropriate them. > > 3. WHAT THEY DIDN'T RESCIND WAS PORK; ANTI-PORK MOVE WAS BLOCKED! > George Brown (D-CA), the scourge of earmarkers, sought to offer > an amendment that would have rescinded $290M in earmarked HUD > projects--most of them inserted by Democrats--but the Republican > leadership refused even to allow Brown's amendment on the floor. > David Obey (D-WI) was allowed to offer an amendment that would > have permitted the Secretary of Defense to cut 500 pork projects, > as an offset to save the Technology Reinvestment Program, but it > lost on a party-line vote. "An early storm warning," Brown said. > > 4. "NSF HAS NOTHING BUT FRIENDS ON THIS COMMITTEE," Steve Schiff > (R-NM), chair of the Basic Research Subcommittee, told Neal Lane > at an authorization hearing on Wednesday. Asked about "strategic > research," the NSF Director admitted words have been a problem. > "NSF doesn't do strategic research," he explained, "we do basic > research in strategic areas." Joe Barton (R-TX), whose district > was home to the SSC, asked if there were pieces of DOE NSF could > use. Let me get back to you in writing on that, Lane responded. > > THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's > and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Feb 27 11:13:03 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21458; Mon, 27 Feb 95 11:12:57 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07548; 27 Feb 95 11:12 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28698; Mon, 27 Feb 95 08:09:01 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA15353; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:07:07 -0700 Message-Id: <9502271607.AA15353@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 09:07:07 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Full NSF and EPA Announcement of opoportunity Status: O > From stisserv-sender@x.nsf.gov Mon Feb 27 08:41:01 1995 > Received: from x.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu > (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28513; Mon, 27 Feb 95 07:42:44 PST > Received: (drstis@localhost) by x.nsf.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) id KAA03827 > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 10:41:05 -0500 > Message-Id: <199502271541.KAA03827@x.nsf.gov> > From: STISSERVE - NSF E-mail Server > To: James Gosz > Subject: nsf9548.txt (complete) ascii > > > ------ begin of nsf9548.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > Title : NSF 95-48 - Interagency Announcement of Opportunity > Type : Program Guideline > NSF Org: BIO / DEB > Date : February 24, 1995 > File : nsf9548 > > > > INTERAGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY > > NSF/EPA Partnership for Environmental Research > > Closing Date: May 1, 1995 > > > > > 1.0 INTRODUCTION > > The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Environmental > Protection Agency (EPA) announce their intent to support a special > awards competition in Fiscal Year (FY) 1995. This NSF-EPA > competition has been developed based on a Memorandum of > Understanding signed on December 8, 1994 which establishes a > partnership between the two agencies emphasizing the support and > merit review of fundamental, extramural environmental research. As > EPA's Office of Research and Development expands its extramural > grants program in FY 1995, NSF is providing assistance and > consultation. The three research areas targeted by this > Announcement of Opportunity are: > > A. Water and Watersheds > > B. Technology for a Sustainable Environment > > C. Valuation and Environmental Policy > > Awards made through this competition are dependent upon > responsiveness of the proposals to the announcement, the quality of > the proposals, and the availability of funds. Under this > announcement, NSF and EPA anticipate awarding: > > * At least $10.0 million for Water and Watersheds, with a > projected award range of from $75,000 to $500,000 per award > per year, and an approximate duration of 2 to 3 years. > > * Up to $6.5 million for Technology for a Sustainable > Environment, with a projected award range of from $75,000 to > $150,000 per award per year, and an approximate duration of 2 > to 3 years. > > & At least $2.5 million for Valuation and Environmental Policy, > with a projected award range of from $60,000 to $100,000 per > award per year, and an approximate duration of 2 to 3 years. > > Proposals in response to this announcement must be received by May > 1, 1995. It is anticipated that awards will be made by fall 1995. > Proposals received by NSF under its normal unsolicited proposal > mechanisms may also be deemed appropriate for consideration under > this announcement and may be funded under this joint program. > Awards resulting from this competition may be made by either NSF or > EPA, at the agencies' option, not the grantee's. > > All grant proposals submitted in response to this Announcement > should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the guidelines > provided in the NSF brochure, Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF 94-2 > (available in most university offices of sponsored research). > Single copies of the GPG brochure and other NSF publications > referenced in this announcement are available at no cost from: NSF > Publications and Supplies Unit, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room P-15, > Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail from: > pubs@nsf.gov. > > EPA documents referenced in this announcement are available through > the Government Printing Office (S/N 055-000-00466-8), or > electronically through the EPA-sponsored CLU-IN Clean-up > Information Bulletin Board, system operator (301) 589-8368, modem > access (301) 589-8366. > > Further information, if needed, may be obtained from the NSF and > EPA Program Officers indicated below. E-mail queries are greatly > preferred over faxes or phone calls: > > General Information on the Competition: > > Dr. Penny Firth: > pfirth@nsf.gov > voice (703) 306-1480 > > Dr. Melinda McClanahan: > hawthorne.karen@epamail.epa.gov > fax (202) 260-0211, voice (202) 260-7474 > > Water and Watersheds: > > Dr. Penny Firth: > pfirth@nsf.gov, > voice (703) 306-1480 > > Dr. Ian MacGregor: > imacgreg@nsf.gov, > voice (703) 306-1553 > > Dr. Steven F. Hedtke: > hedtke.steven@epamail.epa.gov, > fax (218) 720-5703, voice (218) 720-5550, > > Technology for a Sustainable Environment > > Dr. Robert Wellek: > rwellek@nsf.gov > fax (703) 306-0319 > > Dr. Marge Cavanaugh: > mcavanau@nsf.gov voice (703) 306-1842 > > Mr. Gregory C. Ondich: > ondich.greg@epamail.epa.gov > fax (202) 260-3861, voice (202) 260-5747 > > Valuation and Environmental Policy > > Dr. Robin Cantor: > rcantor@nsf.gov > voice (703) 306-1757 > > Dr. Cheryl Eavey: > ceavey@nsf.gov > voice (703) 306-1729 > > Dr. Mary Jo Kealy: > kealy.mary@epamail.epa.gov > fax (202) 260-5732, voice (202) 260-5728 > > Dr. Alan Carlin: > carlin.alan@epamail.epa.gov > fax (202) 260-5732, voice (202) 260-5499 > > > PLEASE NOTE: > For purposes of administration of the competition, applicants are > requested to indicate one of the three topics (A, B, or C) in the > box in the upper left corner of the cover page (see Appendix C of > this announcement). Within topic areas A and C, each proposal will > be administratively processed based on a numbered subtopic > assignment. Although final assignments will be made by NSF and EPA > program officers, applicants are encouraged to indicate on the > cover page which numbered subtopic they believe is most relevant to > the proposal objectives. > > A. Water and Watersheds > 1. Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry > 2. Hydrological Sciences > 3. The Arctic Watershed System > 4. Environmental Biology > 5. Civil Infrastructure Systems > 6. Socioeconomic Driving Forces Affecting Water and Watersheds > 7. International Opportunities for Water and Watershed Research > > B. Technology for a Sustainable Environment > > C. Valuation and Environmental Policy > 1. Fundamental Concepts > 2. Stated Preference Methods > 3. Ecosystem Valuation > 4. Valuing Environmental Resources in National Economic Accounts > > > > 2.0 TOPIC A : > WATER AND WATERSHEDS > > 2.1 Introduction > > Water at the surface of the earth structures the physical > landscape, is a central feature of climate, and exerts major > influences on social, economic, and demographic patterns. > Virtually all organisms are critically dependent on the abundance, > availability, characteristics, and dynamics of water. Water also > is the basic resource that drives many important biological, > meteorological, and geological processes. Human population > pressures have made access to clean water and healthy aquatic > ecosystems paramount environmental issues in the U.S. and > throughout the world. > > Watersheds are landscape units that integrate terrestrial, aquatic, > geologic, and atmospheric processes. The aquatic portions of > watersheds are intimately coupled to the surface and subsurface > terrestrial environment, to groundwater, to adjacent coastal > environments, and to the overlying atmosphere. All of these coupled > systems are strongly influenced by hydrologic cycles and > interactions with humans. The integrated nature of watersheds > provides a strong rationale for supporting interdisciplinary > science and engineering research that uses a systems approach. Such > research is needed in order to underpin decisionmaking that > balances restoration, long-term protection, and wise management of > water and watersheds, including their associated aquifers. > > The goal of the Water and Watersheds competition is to develop an > improved understanding of the natural and anthropogenic processes > that govern the quantity, quality, and availability of water > resources in natural and human-dominated systems, and an > understanding of the structure, function, and dynamics of the > terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that comprise watersheds. > Research on the hydrologic and related chemical cycles and > ecological mechanisms and organizing principles of watersheds > should help provide the foundation for conducting qualitative and > quantitative assessments of the relative risks faced by the > nation's water and other aquatic resources as well as options for > management activities to remediate existing problems and reduce > future risks. > > 2.2 Description > > This competition is intended to support research that cuts across > a variety of disciplines and aims at elucidating important > principles for understanding, protecting, and restoring water > resources and watershed processes in the U.S. and in other regions > of the world. Participation is needed from disciplines > traditionally associated with the study of water and watersheds > such as ecology, hydrology, aquatic chemistry and biology, and > geology. Involvement is also sought from disciplines such as > economics, sociology, policy analysis, engineering, resources > analysis, and public health where their contributions are equally > important but often neglected in water and watershed research. The > intent is to help develop the intellectual infrastructure necessary > to enable advances in our understanding of water and watersheds. > Investigators are encouraged to bring together formerly disparate > approaches to complex issues and explore new paradigms that draw > widely upon different disciplines. This announcement includes > opportunities for both disciplinary and multidisciplinary research; > however, a systemic context is strongly encouraged. > > The research proposed for the Water and Watersheds competition > should address one or more of the following objectives: > > 1) To develop an enhanced predictive understanding of the > processes and mechanisms that govern the dynamics and > properties of surface and subsurface water and watershed > ecosystems. > > 2) To provide the knowledge base necessary to better understand > human factors affecting water and watersheds and to create > management strategies by which these systems can provide for > environmentally sustainable economic and social development. > > 3) To assess and integrate information on water and watersheds > and the needs of management and policy decisionmakers as a > base for developing comprehensive models and identifying areas > where improved understanding is needed. > > 4) To improve understanding of the impacts of extreme events such > as floods, droughts, and hurricanes on continental and coastal > ecosystems and the means to mitigate effects of these events > through better planning and use of preventive measures. > > To address these objectives, the following are some suggested areas > of study that have been identified as current needs: > > * Diagnosing the causes of environmental damage (including the > combined, cumulative, and synergistic effects of chemical, > physical, biological, and human stressors), developing > predictive capabilities for specific restoration practices, > and determining realistic environmental characteristics of > rehabilitated or restored systems. > > * Linking documentation of biodiversity to an understanding of > the importance of different species and ecological processes > to human society and to ecosystem structure and function, > especially in the context of biotic and abiotic manipulations, > and invasions of exotic species. > > * Exploring the hydrological and chemical processes and > mechanisms governing the behavior of nutrients, metals, > microorganisms, and pollutants within and among surface > waters, groundwaters, and soils, and developing models to > predict transport, biogeochemical transformations, and > solute/solid interactions. > > * Identifying and researching indicator variables, analytical > methods, and other tools for determining waters and watersheds > at risk and reducing the uncertainties of extrapolating > information across broad spatial and temporal scales. > > * Interpreting relationships between populations and communities > of organisms and the quality and quantity of water, > particularly as these relate to ecosystem processes, land use > patterns, and landscape structure. > > * Understanding the physical, biological, and socioeconomic > legacies of extreme events and other disturbances, and their > influence on future environmental conditions and the > directions and rates of response of watershed ecosystem > structure and function. > > 2.3 Contributing NSF Program Areas > > Proposers should focus their proposals on the central objectives > and research needs detailed in section 2.2 above, which will be > used to frame and guide proposal review and evaluation. However, > portions of NSF's commitment to this competition will include its > ongoing support of research in the seven areas listed below > (described in more detail in Appendix A). Proposals submitted to > programs in these seven areas that meet all of the requirements of > this joint NSF-EPA Announcement shall be eligible, as appropriate, > for consideration in both programs, if officially requested by the > NSF Program Officer. This is at the discretion of the NSF Program > Officer, not the proposer. > > 1. Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry > 2. Hydrological Sciences > 3. The Arctic Watershed System > 4. Environmental Biology > 5. Civil Infrastructure Systems > 6. Socioeconomic Driving Forces Affecting Water and Watersheds > 7. International Opportunities for Water and Watershed Research > > For administrative purposes, investigators applying under the Water > and Watersheds competition are requested to indicate one of the > above seven areas for their proposal. > > 2.4 Additional Considerations > > Proposals that support individual disciplinary research, > collaborative disciplinary or multidisciplinary research, or > comprehensive system- or watershed-scale studies needing > multidisciplinary teams from a single or a number of institutions > are all encouraged. > > Support for the Water and Watersheds competition in FY 1995 is > expected to be at least $10 million. The projected award range is > $75,000 to $500,000 per award per year, with an approximate > duration of 2 to 3 years. > > > > 3.0 TOPIC B: TECHNOLOGY FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT > > 3.1 Introduction > > Research proposals are invited that advance the development and use > of innovative technologies directed at avoiding environmental harm. > > Pollution prevention technologies avoid the production of > environmentally hazardous substances, or alter human activities in > ways that minimize damage to the environment. These technologies > encompass product substitution and the redesign of entire > production processes, as well as the design and use of new pieces > of equipment. > > To meet the goal of an economically viable and environmentally > sustainable future, new technologies need to be developed and > implemented across a wide range of industries, including auto and > other discrete parts manufacturing, computers and electronics, > metal finishing and plating, iron and steel, chemicals and > materials manufacturing, biotechnology processing, petroleum > refining, and printing. Programs, procedures, and processes that > prevent pollution are preferred solutions to environmental > problems, especially when they improve competitiveness, efficiency, > and compliance with environmental regulations. > > 3.2 Description > > The Technology for a Sustainable Environment competition is > designed to address pollution prevention processes, methodologies, > and technology research. NSF and EPA are providing funds for > research (ranging from fundamental to applied) in physical sciences > and engineering that will lead to the discovery, development, and > evaluation of advanced environmentally benign methods for > industrial processing and manufacturing. > > The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 defines pollution prevention > as "source reduction" Q meaning decreased generation of pollutants > through such approaches as equipment and technology modifications, > process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of > products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in > housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. The > statutory definition does not include recycling, energy recovery, > treatment, and disposal. However, for this competition, NSF and > EPA also seek research proposals that focus on in-process > recycling, post-waste-generation recycling, and energy-recovery > options. > > For EPA, this competition is an integral part of the Presidentially > directed Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI), which promotes > technology innovation and the global marketability of U.S. > environmental technologies. In addition to research on prevention > methodologies, the ETI supports three additional prevention-related > socioeconomic and policy areas: policy reforms, innovation > capacity, and accelerating the diffusion of innovative technology > information; see Appendix B for information on a current EPA > solicitation in these areas. Further, the objectives of ETI are > discussed in greater detail in EPA's Draft Technology Innovation > Strategy (EPA 543-K-93-002, January 1994). > > Research projects supported in this competition may cover > fundamental as well as applied aspects of pollution prevention. > Projects must address or be relevant to current national concerns > for pollution prevention. Significant problems and creative > solutions are likely to be identified by academic and industrial > investigators working together on challenges posed by "real world" > industrial problems. > > Support for research will concentrate on: > > a) Industries dominated by small business. Potential industries > include: metals, electronics, dry cleaning, and printing. > > b) Industrial manufacturing operations that have application in > a variety of facilities, including - cleaning and degreasing, > coating and application of solvents, and use of refrigerants, > > c) "Green" process chemistry and materials manufacturing; and > intelligent process controls and feedback systems to prevent > or minimize waste generation. > > Fundamental advancement in environmentally conscious design and > manufacturing, and environmentally benign chemical synthesis and > process technologies, is also sought. Included are projects that > can lead to innovative discrete-parts manufacturing, feedstock > substitutions, alternative synthetic and separation procedures, > product reformations, manufacturing sensor technology > modifications, and biochemical and material process modifications > that minimize byproduct formation and reduce waste production at > the source. Industrial participation in the research is desirable > to ensure the viability of proposed projects in "real world" > manufacturing situations. Some potential areas of research are > illustrated by the following examples, though eligible proposals > are by no means restricted to these cases: > > * Innovative chemical and materials synthesis and processing > methodologies, including use of biotechnology or development > of real-time, in-process sensors that reduce use of toxic > intermediates or production of pollutants in specific > industrial sector applications. > > * Design of discrete-parts and electronics manufacturing systems > for ease of disassembly or reuse, and development of durable > materials that are degradable or recyclable. > > * Alternative cleaning or production methods that eliminate, > combine, or improve process steps, resulting in a net > reduction of pollutants. > > * Improved separation technologies, including membrane and > molecular sieves, for use in purification or recycling. > > * Novel thermal or fluid manufacturing processes, or electric > power generation processes that reduce production of > particulates and other hazardous effluents at the source. > > * Development of mathematical algorithms, intelligent control, > and sensing capabilities for pollution prevention. > > > Since the preparation of competitive research proposals is very > time consuming, it is also appropriate to present a few examples of > what is NOT being sought: 1) research on processes to remove > pollutants from waste streams or research on waste treatment, 2) > research on membrane separations unless the membrane is in the > process to improve selectivity or process efficiency, 3) research > on catalysis for reaction rate enhancement alone, or 4) research on > housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. > > > 3.3 Additional Considerations > > Proposals may be submitted by individuals or small groups who are > working on projects that will advance the concepts and technologies > of pollution prevention. Proposals that link basic, applied, and > policy aspects of pollution prevention, as well as > multidisciplinary projects, are encouraged. > > Portions of NSF's commitment to this program will include its > on-going support of research in environmentally conscious > technologies. For example, NSF will continue its Environmentally > Benign Chemical Synthesis and Processing Program (NSF 92-13 or its > successor), and an expanded program in environmentally conscious > design, manufacturing, synthesis, and processing, which will be > described in a forthcoming publication. For more information on > the Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing activity, contact Dr. > Bruce M. Kramer, bkramer@nsf.gov, (703) 306-1330. > > Up to $6.5 million will be available for the Technology for a > Sustainable Environment competition, with a projected award range > of from $75,000 to $150,000 per award per year, and an approximate > duration of up to 3 years. Multi-investigator projects may be > considered for a higher funding level. Multi-year funding of any > project will be considered but not guaranteed. Respondents wishing > to propose projects for more than one year should include annual > budgets and should justify this need. Proposals that include > resource contributions (cost sharing) from submitters and/or their > partners will receive special consideration. > > This announcement encourages partnerships between industry and > universities and other not-for-profit organizations. The NSF Grant > Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) program > announcement (NSF 94-138) outlines several possible approaches. > Additional approaches will also be considered. > > This announcement also provides opportunities for U.S. > investigators to initiate new international partnerships with > foreign colleagues to facilitate the development and diffusion of > pollution prevention technologies or to expand such linkages for > promising technological returns to the nation. For more information > on international opportunities, contact Dr. William Y.B. Chang, > wychang@nsf.gov, (703) 306-1704. > > > 4.0 TOPIC C: VALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY > > 4.1 Introduction > > The Valuation and Environmental Policy competition encourages > fundamental and methodological research on measurement of values > with emphasis on situations where prices or other standard signals > of worth are deficient or absent. The goal of this competition is > to support research that advances the scientific basis of > valuation, especially as it contributes to environmental policy and > decision making. > > Valuation is central to many concerns of environmental policy. > Economic and political decision-making in environmental policy has > heightened attention to how non-marketed goods, services, and > assets are reflected in policy analysis and broader national > measures of progress and welfare. For example, economic values for > most environmental goods and services, which are provided free by > nature, are usually not observed in the market place. Moreover, the > mere existence of environmental goods, and perhaps other goods, can > also be viewed as a source of value. Finally, approaches to > illuminate the psychological, social, cultural, and moral > dimensions of value are needed to inform policy analyses that > address issues of ethics, legitimacy, environmental equity and > procedural justice. > > > 4.2 Description > > Government agencies responsible for policy analysis, statutory > rules, or regulatory decision-making involving non-market and > passive-use values have an interest in advancing research to help > develop practical valuation approaches that are systematic and > credible. This competition is intended to support research projects > in four areas: 1) fundamental concepts, 2) stated-preference > methods, 3) ecosystem valuation, and 4) valuing environmental > resources in national economic accounts. > > > 4.3 Component Subtopics > > 1) Fundamental Concepts > > Environmental policy often poses difficult decisions for society > involving complex tradeoffs and the explicit consideration of > ethical principles. To date, research in valuation has been > conducted primarily by economists and sociologists, with some > contributions from the psychology and philosophy communities. It is > now recognized that many critical issues in valuation, including > psychological perceptions and comprehension, cultural norms, and > methodological issues of social value, require contributions from > a broader range of social and behavioral science disciplines. > Proposals submitted to this component of the competition should > address fundamental research on concepts, analytical constructs, > and measurements that are particularly relevant for environmental > policy. Potential topics for study include, but are not limited to, > research on: > > * Socially influenced motivations and moral values, including > research on normative principles and motives (e.g., altruism, > self-interest, reputation) that can influence judgments, > evaluations, and decisions that people make about unfamiliar, > non-marketed goods and assets. > > * Economic rationality and decision-making under uncertainty, > including research that addresses the formation of > perceptions, judgments, and preferences that define the basis > for individual utility (i.e. individual measure of > satisfaction from the consumption of goods and services). > > * Measures of social and cultural preference and valuation, > including research that addresses issues of sovereignty and > the relationship between individual and social values for > welfare analysis. > > * Implications of scale and time for preference measures and > valuation, including research on regional and international > equity, intergenerational equity, environmental ethics, and > the stability of preferences over time. > > > 2) Stated Preference Methods > > Currently, several federal agencies are attempting to write > methodological guidelines for studies of economic value that bear > on regulatory and natural resource damage assessment rules. One > approach to valuing goods not traded in markets (e.g., passive > benefits of water pollution control) is to rely on survey methods > or controlled experiments to elicit stated or expressed values > directly from individuals in representative population samples. > Several alternative stated preference methods are potentially > applicable to the estimation of passive use, including contingent > valuation (the prevailing method), conjoint analysis and contingent > ranking. Proposals submitted to this component of the Valuation and > Environmental Policy competition should seek to further the > scientific basis for stated preference methods and to increase > their usefulness, reliability and validity, and to decrease their > cost. Consideration will be given to the relevance of the research > for current regulatory responsibilities to develop guidelines for > conducting stated preference studies for valuation. > Interdisciplinary research is strongly encouraged. Examples of > areas where federal agencies have significant information needs in > the environmental valuation area include: > > * Methodological considerations, including research on > comparative analyses of stated preference methods, elicitation > methods, payment mechanisms, and the development of > alternative approaches. > > * Design of valuation scenarios and context, including research > on the embedding problem, the extent of the market, > information and question framing, and question format and > order. > > * Validation and hypothetical bias, including research on the > relationship between stated and actual measures of economic > value and methods to determine the consistency of elicited > bids with economic theory. > > * Survey methodology for environmental valuation, including > research on survey and sample design, outlier bids, and > comparative analysis of survey error across methods and survey > modes. > > > 3) Ecosystem Valuation > > Traditional valuation approaches have focused on changes in the > individual services or functions of ecosystems to identify benefits > or costs of environmental policy or regulation. Comprehensive > assessments of changes in ecosystem functions are often limited by > inadequate knowledge of the relationships among ecosystem > inhabitants, functions, and services. Another limiting factor is > the poorly understood relationship between keystone species or > critical biological functions and human activities. Moreover, the > economic and social consequences of changes in overall > environmental well-being are insufficiently defined. Scientific > advances in ecosystem valuation require better understanding of the > interconnectedness among social, economic, physical, and biological > systems. Proposals submitted to this component of the Valuation and > Environmental Policy competition should emphasize these > interdependencies in their research and focus on how comprehensive > or critical ecosystem changes can be understood and measured in > terms of social welfare. Novel, collaborative, or > interdisciplinary scientific efforts are especially encouraged. > Examples of the topics of interest in this component include: > > * Core concepts of comprehensive ecosystem function, including > research that characterizes and quantifies the natural > environment and links measures of ecosystem productivity and > sustainability with economic activities and changes in human > welfare. > > * Valuing biodiversity and other critical ecosystem components, > including research that illuminates the interactive and > synergistic role of these components and their economic > implications. > > * Methods for valuation, including research that identifies > ecosystem functions of value to society and addresses issues > of time, scale, and natural and political boundaries. > > > 4) Valuing Environmental Resources in National Economic Accounts > > National economic accounts, such as gross national product (GNP) > and gross domestic product (GDP), serve to gauge the contributions > of economic activity to social welfare and growth. Social welfare > involves many factors that contribute to standard of living and > quality of life goals, yet national income accounts make little or > no allowance for the quantity and quality of environmental > resources and amenities. Including changes in the environment and > in natural resources explicitly in the national accounts requires > measurement approaches that build on scientifically defensible > definitions of economic progress and national prosperity. This area > encourages research to 1) develop valuation methods for national > environmental assets, 2) determine their consistency with > accounting practices in the current national accounts, and 3) > demonstrate their practical feasibility and cost implications > through applications to representative environmental resources. > Examples of the issues that may influence research topics in this > area include: > > * Definitional boundaries for environmental degradation, > including fundamental research on the core concepts of natural > capital, resource sustainability, substitutability, and > irreversibility. > > * Methodological research on resource depletion, including > research that addresses base levels, rates of use, rates of > production, and recycling of resources as well as the roles of > property rights and treatment of externalities. > > * Monetization and aggregation of environmental values, > including research on methods to define appropriate accounting > concepts for natural assets, to address uncertainty, and to > address intergenerational and interregional considerations. > > > 4.4 Additional Considerations > > Support for the Valuation and Environmental Policy competition in > FY 1995 is expected to be at least $2.5 million. The projected > award range is $60,000 to $100,000 per award per year, with an > approximate duration of 2 to 3 years. Social science experiments > and survey research, and multi-investigator projects, may be > considered for a higher funding level. Depending on the quality of > proposals and the recommendations from merit review, EPA and NSF > expect more than half of the resources to be allocated to the > component area of stated-preference methods for valuation. > > > > > 5.0 ELIGIBILITY > > Not-for-profit organizations, both academic and non-academic, are > eligible to submit proposals in response to this announcement. > Federal, state, and local government affiliated organizations > (other than education institutions) are not considered eligible > under this announcement except as noted in the next paragraph. > > For Valuation and Environmental Policy ONLY, proposals will be > considered from researchers at other Federal agencies or at > Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) for > research directed to the goals of special national and > international research programs for which the Foundation bears > special responsibility. Scientists from other federal agencies or > FFRDCs are encouraged to participate directly or by developing > collaborations with university scientists. Any proposals under > this category should not include costs related to civil service > salaries for federal scientists. > > NSF and EPA welcome proposals on behalf of all qualified > scientists, engineers and other professionals, and strongly > encourage women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to > compete fully in any of the programs described in this > announcement. > > In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations and NSF and EPA > policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national > origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, > denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any > program or activity receiving financial assistance from the > National Science Foundation or the Environmental Protection Agency. > > > > 6.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL SUBMISSION > > Proposals submitted in response to this Announcement must be > prepared and submitted in accordance with the guidelines provided > in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (NSF 94-2). The GPG may be > found in most university offices of sponsored research or is > available from the NSF as directed in section 1.0. > > The GPG may be obtained electronically via the Science and > Technology Information System (STIS). Instructions for obtaining > documents through STIS are printed on the inside front cover of > this announcement. > > For your convenience, necessary NSF forms have been printed at the > back of this announcement. See Appendix C, Proposal Forms Kit, for > the forms you will need to submit your proposal. > > The GPG normally limits the number of pages for the Project > Description to fifteen (see page 5 of the GPG, Section C.4., > Project Description -- Proposal Section C). However, for this > announcement, any proposal submitted under Valuation and > Environmental Policy which involves a survey is hereby authorized > to deviate from the requirement that all information be contained > in Sections A through I of the proposal: proposers should append > the survey instrument as an appendix to their proposal (see page 10 > of the GPG, Section C.11., Appendices -- Proposal Section J). > > For this announcement, fifteen (15) copies of each proposal, > including one copy bearing original signatures, should be mailed > to: > > National Science Foundation PPU > Dept. FSS > Announcement NSF 95-48 > 40 West Gude Drive, Suite 100 > Rockville, MD 20850 > > The closing date for proposal submission for this competition is > May 1, 1995. Proposals submitted in response to this announcement > must be: > > 1) received at the address given above no later than May 1, 1995; > or, > > 2) be postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service no later than April > 26, 1995. > > NOTE: The May 1, 1995 deadline is final. Proposals received after > May 1, or postmarked later than April 26 will not be accepted. > > For those proposals selected for funding by EPA, supplemental > information will be needed to fulfill EPA regulatory requirements > that differ from those of NSF. EPA will provide the applicant > institution with the requisite forms at the appropriate time. > > > 7.0 PROPOSAL REVIEW > > EPA and NSF use similar general criteria in review of competitive > grant proposals. NSF's criteria are described in the NSF Grant > Proposal Guide. For this joint NSF-EPA announcement, proposals > will be evaluated through the standard NSF merit review process, as > conducted jointly by EPA and NSF. Compliance with Federal > certification requirements is a prerequisite for receiving awards > under this program. > > General criteria used in the evaluation of proposals are: > > * Overall merit of the proposal, including unique and innovative > methods, approaches, or concepts demonstrated in the proposal. > > * The qualifications and capabilities of the investigators. > > * Potential to contribute to the advancement of the specific > topic areas of the program in particular. > > * Potential to enhance training and information transfer in the > topic areas of this program. > > Final selection of awardees by NSF and EPA will be based on a > review panel's recommendations and programmatic considerations. It > is expected that grant awards will be made by fall, 1995. > > > 8.0 GRANT ADMINISTRATION > > Upon conclusion of panel merit review, meritorious proposals may be > recommended for funding by either NSF or EPA, at the agencies' > option, not the proposer's. Subsequent grant administration > procedures will be in accordance with the individual policies of > the awarding agency. > > > 8.1 NSF Grant Administration > > NSF grants awarded as a result of this announcement will be > administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF > GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP-II, "Federal Demonstration > Project General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee > organization. > > For NSF awards, more comprehensive information on the > administration of NSF grants is contained in the Grant Policy > Manual (NSF 88-47, July 1989), for sale through the Superintendent > of Documents, Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. > 20402. The telephone number at GPO is (202) 512-1800 for > subscription information. > > Organizations applying to NSF for the first time, or which have not > received an NSF award within the preceding 2 years, should refer to > the NSF Grant Policy Manual, Section 340, for instructions on > specific information that may be requested by NSF. First time NSF > awardees will be required to submit organizational, management, and > financial information, including a certification of civil rights > compliance, before a grant can be made. One copy of the Grant > Policy Manual will be provided free of charge to new grantees. > > Upon completion of an NSF project, a Final Project Report (NSF Form > 98A) form will be sent to the grantee. Applicants should review > this form prior to proposal submission so that appropriate tracking > mechanisms are included in the proposal plan to ensure that > complete information will be available at the conclusion of the > project. > > The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides awards for research > in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible > for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for > publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume > responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. > > NSF Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with > Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to > enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, > including student research assistants) to work on NSF-supported > projects. For more information see NSF's GPG. > > The Foundation has TDD (Telephone Device for the Deaf) capability, > which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate > with the NSF Information Center about NSF programs, employment, or > general information. The (TDD) telephone number is (703) 306-0090. > > Activities described in this publication are in the following > categories in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA): > > 47.041 Engineering, > 47.049 Mathematical and Physical Sciences; 47.050 Geosciences; > 47.074 Biological Sciences; > 47.075 Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. > > > PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS > > The information requested on proposal forms is solicited under the > authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as > amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of > qualified proposals and may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and > staff assistants as part of the review process; to applicant > institutions / grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the > application review process, award decisions, or the administration > of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and > researchers, as necessary to complete assigned work; and to other > government agencies in order to coordinate programs. See Systems of > Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigators/Proposal File and > Associated Records" 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995), > and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposals File and Associated Records" 59 > Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of the > information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and completed > information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving > an award. > > The public reporting burden for this collection of information is > estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for > reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden > estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, > including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Herman G. > Fleming, Reports Clearance Officer, Division of Contracts, Policy > and Oversight, NSF, Arlington, VA 22230; and/or to the Office of > Management and Budget, OIRM - Paperwork Reduction Project > (3145-0058), Washington, D.C. 20503. > > > 8.2 EPA Grant Administration > > The funding mechanism for all EPA awards made in response to this > announcement will consist of a grant agreement between EPA and the > recipient institution. In accordance with Public Law 95-224, a > grant is used to accomplish a public purpose of support or > stimulation authorized by Federal statute rather than acquisition > for the direct benefit of the Agency. > > EPA grants awarded as a result of this announcement will be > administered in accordance with 40 DFR Part 30 and 40 , or FDPII > terms and conditions, depending upon the grantee institution. > > EPA provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering > related to environmental protection. The awardee is solely > responsible for the conduct of such activities and preparation of > results for publication. EPA, therefore, does not assume > responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. > > > APPENDIX A > > Contributing NSF Program Areas for Water and Watersheds > > 1: ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMISTRY AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY (EGB) > > The NSF EGB program encourages interdisciplinary research on the > physico-chemical-biotic behavior of chemical compounds within one > environment or on a common chemical theme throughout a variety of > environments. Of particular interest are projects that > characterize chemical parameters in both perturbed and unperturbed > natural systems, clarify the chemical processes or behavior > observed, or combine observations and interpretations into > predictive models. Areas of interest include soils, groundwaters, > surface waters and coastal marine environments. The announcement > for the EGB program is NSF 95-49. Contacts: Dr. Maryellen Cameron, > Division of Earth Sciences, mcameron@nsf.gov, (703) 306-1554; Dr. > Donald L. Rice, Division of Ocean Sciences, drice@nsf.gov, (703) > 306-1589; and Dr. Marge Cavanaugh, Division of Chemistry, > mcavanau@nsf.gov, (703) 306-1842. > > > 2: HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES > > The NSF Hydrological Sciences Program funds basic research to add > to understanding and improved quantification of processes in the > earth's hydrologic cycle and of the roles of water on and near the > continental surfaces of the earth. The program supports studies on > water in precipitation, lakes, streams, soils, and aquifers and on > how water interacts with landforms, the atmosphere, the biosphere, > and the earth's crust. Special attention is placed on 1) > characterization of the heterogeneous surface and upper layers of > earth, 2) the chemical and biological processes impacting particle > and solute transport, and 3) integrating surface characterization > and process definition in quantitative flow models. The > announcement for the Hydrological Sciences program is NSF 92-50. > Contact: Dr. L. Douglas James, Division of Earth Sciences, > ldjames@nsf.gov, (703) 306-1549. > > > 3: THE ARCTIC WATERSHED SYSTEM (TAWS) > > Proposals are encouraged which treat the hydrology and > biogeochemistry of the Arctic drainage basin from a systems > perspective. Of particular interest are those aspects of the Arctic > watershed system which are linked to water quality, > bioaccumulation, sediment and dissolved material pathways, and flux > rates and ocean circulation. Specific areas of interest are > research on the linkages between the land and ocean components of > the Arctic system and emphasis on water resources in this system. > Research should favor broad syntheses and reviews of existing > knowledge rather than new measurements, field research, and > experimentation. Appropriate products from these efforts would be > organized data bases, state-of-knowledge volumes, and conceptual > and predictive models which would suggest future research > directions. Cross-disciplinary approaches between scientists, > organizations, and countries are encouraged. The NSF announcement > for TAWS appears in The Arctic System Science Program (NSF 92-5) > and the Global Change Research Program (NSF 92-77). Contacts: Dr. > Michael Ledbetter, Office of Polar Programs, mledbett@nsf.gov, > (703) 306-1030; and Dr. Patrick Webber, Office of Polar Programs, > pwebber@nsf.gov, (703) 306-1030. > > > 4: ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY > > Three NSF programs promote interdisciplinary approaches for further > understanding the interactions of biotic communities and species > with the availability, routing, and composition of water in natural > and human-dominated ecosystems: Ecological Studies, Systematic and > Population Biology, and Long-Term Projects. Specific areas of > emphasis related to this competition include 1) ecological > restoration and rehabilitation of aquatic, riparian, and wetland > ecosystems, 2) maintaining biodiversity within aquatic ecosystems > and watersheds, 3) groundwater/surface water ecotones, 4) > vegetative responses to catchment fertilization from inputs of > atmospheric and fluvial sources of nutrients, and 5) rates and > patterns of biogeochemical processes along different hydrologic > flowpaths. The announcement for all Environmental Biology programs > is NSF 93-103. Contact: Dr. Cliff Dahm, Division of Environmental > Biology, cdahm@nsf.gov, (703) 306-1479. > > > 5: CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS > > Civil Infrastructure Systems (CIS) research focuses on 1) > interactions between water supply and demand in the natural and > built environment, and 2) integration of water quality, quantity > and aquatic ecosystem integrity in the planning, design, and > management of water systems. A broad array of research pertaining > to water resources, water supply, and waste water treatment will > link with infrastructure renewal, remediation, or redevelopment. An > area of special interest is the integration of domestic and > international basin problems. Contact: Dr. Eleanora Sabadell, > Division of Civil and Mechanical Structures, esabadel@nsf.gov, > (703) 306-1362. > > > 6: SOCIOECONOMIC DRIVING FORCES AFFECTING WATER AND WATERSHEDS > > Objectives include development of a multi-faceted systemic > perspective on, and predictive understanding of, the impacts of > human behavior and social and economic systems on water resources > and watersheds. Proposals for research on water and watershed > issues inside and outside the United StatesQas well as in border > areasQare of interest. Research is needed on the relationships > among water resources and watersheds and such human conditions and > behaviors as population growth, migration, poverty, agricultural > and industrial practices and development, urban growth and change, > housing, transportation, political and legal processes, and the > socioeconomic incentives and disincentives underlying each of > these. Proposals should embed their research in a > multidisciplinary and systemic context. The announcement describing > programs in the NSF Division of Social, Behavioral, and Economic > Research is NSF 94-64. Contact: Dr. C. Neal Tate, Division of > Social Behavioral and Economic Research, ctate@nsf.gov, (703) > 306-1762. > > > 7: INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR WATER AND WATERSHED RESEARCH > > International opportunities focus on proposals of an innovative > nature and exceptional merit that improve U.S. participation in > international water and watershed research and education. The > following types of activities are especially encouraged between > U.S. and foreign scientists and engineers: 1) Cooperative > research, joint seminars and workshops, and planning visits, and > 2) international research experiences for junior scientists and > engineers including postdoctoral and junior investigator research > fellowships, dissertation enhancement awards, and summer institutes > for graduate students. The announcement describing programs in the > Division of International Programs is NSF 93-51. Contact: Dr. > William Y. B. Chang, Division of International Programs, > wychang@nsf.gov, (703) 306-1704. > > > APPENDIX B > > Related EPA Program Area for Technology for a Sustainable > Environment > > > PREVENTION-RELATED SOCIOECONOMIC INITIATIVES > > In addition to joining with the National Science Foundation to > solicit grant proposals for pollution prevention technologies > research, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through > a separate solicitation to be announced soon in the Federal > Register, will be seeking proposals for innovative socioeconomic > programs related to pollution prevention. The purpose of this > appendix is to indicate the nature and scope of proposals that EPA > will be inviting. For a copy of the EPA solicitation, please fax a > request to (202) 260-0211, or call (202) 260-7474. > > EPA is especially interested in proposals focused on policy > reforms, innovation capacity building opportunities, and > alternatives for diffusing environmental technology information. > Such projects are clearly distinct from conventional socioeconomic > research and development. That is, they go beyond study and > analysis of issues to apply existing knowledge in pioneering > attempts to effect social or institutional change with respect to > innovative technology implementation. > > Policy framework topics of interest include: 1) strengthening > incentives for the development and use of innovative prevention > technologies and 2) identifying and reducing barriers to > innovation. Aspects to be addressed include legislation, > regulatory development processes, regulations, and implementation > mechanisms (e.g., permitting and compliance policies and programs). > This area encompasses all environmental media (water, air, etc.) > and emphasizes pilot projects, not analytical studies. Policy > framework proposals often address issues that have a broader focus > than pollution prevention alone. Such proposals are welcome so > long as they are also applicable to pollution prevention > technologies or issues. > > Policy framework focuses on environmental regulatory programs in > the broadest sense, from legislation through compliance and > enforcement. Projects selected in this area will address > regulatory programs in order to identify and enhance incentives for > the development and use of innovative technologies; to minimize > barriers to the development and use of such technologies; and to > incorporate provisions into new and existing regulations and > programs that maximize flexibility and widen the range of > technologies accepted for use. Special attention will be given to > the use of market-based instruments for creating flexibility and > incentives to innovate. > > Innovation capacity proposals should be focused on how to assist, > or catalyze, prevention technology development and > commercialization efforts. Examples of possible work in these > areas are programs or projects to 1) standardize testing protocols > and verify the cost and performance of innovative prevention > technologies, 2) develop approaches for reducing or eliminating > non-regulatory sources of market inefficiency with respect to > investment in environmental technology and entry of effective > technology into commerce, and 3) support environmental technology > test facilities. > > Proposals on diffusion of information should focus on new and > improved means of fostering information networks, technical > assistance, and outreach activities. Both domestic and > international applications are encouraged. For example, there is > need to enhance the capacity of existing or newly created public > and private sector diffusion activities to serve the potential > users of pollution prevention technologies both domestically and > abroad. Proposals may include activities relating to market > demand, availability, cost, performance, opportunities for business > development, and regulatory requirements. > > > APPENDIX C. > > PROPOSAL FORMS KIT > > (NOTE: For full proposal kit for this announcement see printed > version of NSF 94-50) > > > > > > OMB #3145-0058 > PT 34 > KW 1007001, 1007010, 0307002, 041009 > NSF 95-48 (New) > ------ end of nsf9548.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Feb 27 16:47:51 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23315; Mon, 27 Feb 95 16:47:49 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28107; 27 Feb 95 16:47 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02907; Mon, 27 Feb 95 13:42:22 PST Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 13:42:21 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Re: NSF Center Competition (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu, lmer@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NSF NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING RESEARCH ________________________________________________________________ An Opportunity in the Environment and Global Change Research Initiative Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences PROPOSAL RECEIPT DEADLINE: May 1, 1995 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION --------------------------------------------------------------- National Science Foundation National Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research In Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 the National Science Foundation intends to establish a National Environmental Decision-Making Research Center for the purpose of improving the scientific basis for Government decision making on the environment. The Center will have an interdisciplinary focus and must include a component that synthesizes research results from a variety of sources for use by environmental policy makers and the private sector. It is anticipated that funding will be $1 million per year for up to five years for the continuing activities of the Center. PURPOSE OF THE CENTER There is an increasing need for knowledge that responds to the needs of decision makers in environmental policy and management. The Foundation and the many other agencies that support environmental research would benefit from improvement in the following functions: o Agenda setting for federal environmental research that is informed by actual needs of decision makers--including representatives of industry. o Information management and the synthesis of knowledge from information. o Closing the loop between research and the use of research findings. Enhancing the performance of these functions will be the primary purpose of the National Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research. To improve agenda setting, applicants might wish to devise research mechanisms that will help answer such questions as: o Who are the decision makers? o What do they need to know? o When do they need to know it? o In what form and with what confidence limits do they need the knowledge? o What research questions derive from these needs? To enhance information management and knowledge synthesis, applicants might devise research strategies to address: o What analyses and approaches are necessary? o What are the shortcomings of our current approach to managing environmental information so that it is credible and readily available? o How can we increase the understanding and effectiveness of environmental problem-solving, information processing, and decision making by individuals and organizations? o At what levels of aggregation should environmental issue-related information be synthesized? o Can risk and valuation analyses be used to help set priorities among the syntheses? o What rules should be put in place to ensure the credibility of the process? Finally, to help close the loop between research and knowledge use, applicants might suggest research and educational activities that would seek to answer such questions as: o How can decision makers be helped to understand the limits of environmental science and engineering as well as its capabilities? o How can environmental scientists and engineers learn the processes by which policies are established, management decisions made, and industrial choices defined? o How can environmental scientists and engineers be helped to communicate information and knowledge to those involved in these processes? ORGANIZATION OF THE CENTER The Center can involve a single academic institution, a consortium of universities, a national laboratory, a private sector institute, or a consortium of any of these organizations. Alternatively, the Center can be distributed, employing advanced electronic communication capabilities to complement a small administrative staff. Center proposals that include international components and connections are welcome. If feasible, the National Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research will be linked to the Consortium of Centers being planned under NSF's Human Dimensions of Global Change competition, described below. The Center's organization should ensure flexibility, allowing it to maximize its capabilities and to deal effectively with the range of critical environmental issues. It should spearhead efforts to define environmental problems that have been difficult to solve because of information barriers, and foster research to remove these barriers. It may contain an education and training component that may include such activities as fostering public forums and encouraging exchanges between environmental science professionals and environmental managers and policy makers. PROPOSAL FORMAT, CONTENT, AND REVIEW Proposals should be prepared and submitted in accordance with procedures outlined in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) NSF 94-2. Single copies of this Guide and all other NSF publications are available at no cost from the Forms and Publications Unit, phone (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov (Internet). Format and page limitations contained in the GPG apply. Proposals should address how the center will: o identify and, through appropriate research, fill information gaps in scientific and engineering knowledge that are critical to environmental decision making. o integrate, collate, organize, and translate or interpret scientific and engineering data and research results into language that is useful to policy makers. o strengthen the linkages between the research and policy communities. In addition, proposals should contain a Management Plan as part of the Project Description. The Management Plan should be no more than four (4) pages. It should describe the nature of the collaborative effort and the division of responsibilities among center participants. In particular, it must include a description of the logistical, operational, and management aspects of the center, including descriptions of the specific site(s) where the center will function or the type(s) of site(s) where the center is expected to function, and explanations of how the institution(s) will support and administer the center. Centers may involve a consortium of two or more institutions, but a single institution must accept overall management responsibility, with payments to collaborators handled through subcontracts. Center proposals will be evaluated by outside reviewers and a multidisciplinary panel of experts convened by the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. In addition, site visits to institutions submitting the most competitive proposals may be conducted by NSF staff and external experts. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION Proposals must be received at NSF by 5:00 P.M., May 1, 1995. The copy bearing original signatures and 17 additional copies should be mailed in a single package clearly marked "National Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research/SBE" to: NSF Proposal Processing Unit (PPU) 4201 Wilson Boulevard - Room P60 Arlington, VA 22230 Only one (1) copy of NSF Form 1225, Information about Principal Investigator/Project Director, should be sent, attached to the original signed proposal. Inquiries concerning the National Center competition should be directed to: C. Neal Tate Division of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research National Science Foundation, Room 995 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 e-mail: ctate@nsf.gov Phone: (703) 306-1762 / FAX: (703) 306-0485 GRANT ADMINISTRATION Grants awarded as a result of this announcement are administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP-II, "Federal Demonstration Project General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee organization. Copies of these and other NSF publications are available at not cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit, phone (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail pubs@nsf.gov (Internet). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 88-47, July 1989), for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO is (202) 783-3238 for subscription information. RELATED OPPORTUNITY Potential applicants should be aware of a related competition for a "Consortium of HDGC Research Centers and Research Teams" being conducted under the auspices of NSF's Human Dimensions of Global Change (HDGC) Research Opportunity. In FY 1995, NSF has designated $6 million for this competition. The goals of this competition are to: o facilitate the progress of HDGC research o promote HDGC education and training of researchers ranging from undergraduates to post-doctoral levels o foster interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary collaborations on HDGC issues. Centers and teams funded under the HDGC research opportunity will be linked into a consortium of centers and teams. For further details, consult the announcement "Human Dimensions of Global Change" (NSF 94-166), available from the Forms and Publications unit at NSF. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and research-related programs described in this document In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provides funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on an NSF project. See the program announcement or contact the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636. Privacy Act and Public Burden. The information requested on NSF proposal forms is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process; to applicant institutions/grantees; to provide or obtain data regarding the application review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers as necessary to complete assigned work; and to other government agencies in order to coordinate programs. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995), "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 59 Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Herman G. Fleming Reports Clearance Officer Contracts, Policy and Oversight National Science Foundation Arlington VA 22230 and/or to the Office of Management and Budget Paperwork Reduction Project (3145-0058) Washington, DC 20503. The Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the NSF Information Center about NSF programs, employment, or general information. The telephone number is (703) 306-0090. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance category 47.075. OMB 3145-0058 PT 4,34 KW 00404000,0408000, 0408015,0409000, 0411000,0411003,0411009,0411013,0411025, 0413013,0414044,0418003, 0725000,0725030,0801013, 1007000,1007001,1007002,1007003,1007004 NSF 95-44 (new) From jgosz@lternet.washington.edu Tue Feb 28 11:52:26 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA26437; Tue, 28 Feb 95 11:52:23 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23623; 28 Feb 95 11:52 EST Received: from dirt.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08683; Tue, 28 Feb 95 08:48:52 PST Received: by dirt.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02633; Tue, 28 Feb 95 08:48:09 PST Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 08:48:09 PST From: James Gosz Message-Id: <9502281648.AA02633@dirt.lternet.washington.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Budget cuts for NSF Status: OR House Appropriations to Consider FY 1995 Rescissions FYI No. 34, February 27, 1995 Republicans in the House are moving rapidly to curtail fiscal year 1995 spending. Last week, action was taken on two measures that rescind, or take back, funds already appropriated for the current fiscal year. On February 22, the House passed H.R. 889, a defense supplemental bill providing additional money for peacekeeping missions and enhancing military readiness. Offsets for this supplemental spending include a cut of $500 million from DOD's Technology Reinvestment Program and $107 million from NIST's Advanced Technology Program. Also last week, the House Appropriations subcommittees worked on a rescissions bill cutting additional amounts from the current budget to offset federal spending on natural disasters, to fund proposed tax cuts, and to make progress toward balancing the budget. This package of cuts, or rescissions, (no bill number is yet available) will go to the full House Appropriations Committee this Thursday, where sources say approval is likely. The bill will then go on to the House floor for a vote. The proposed rescissions bill cuts nearly $17.1 billion from current FY 1995 appropriations. The largest reduction, of $9.4 billion, comes from the VA/HUD/Independent Agencies subcommittee. Much of this is targeted toward President Clinton's National Service initiative, housing, nutrition, job-training, and education programs. NASA's current-year budget would be cut by $66 million, with $25 million coming from the Earth Observing System and $10 million from the Hubble Space Telescope program. NSF would receive a $132 million rescission, to be taken out of the Academic Research Infrastructure program. However, this year's NSF appropriation was accompanied by conference report language specifying that NSF could use the full $250 million for research infrastructure only if it requested an equivalent amount in FY 1996. By not requesting this amount, NSF has already chosen to forfeit the $132 million. Within the Commerce, Justice and State subcommittee, the Commerce Department would take the heaviest hit, of $166 million. A total of $46.6 million would come from the National Institute of Standards and Technology: the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) would feel a $26.5 million cut, and technology research at NIST's intramural laboratories would be cut by $19.5 million. While NIST's cooperative programs with industry have been a favorite target of many Republicans, a portion of this cut is aimed at NIST laboratory programs, which develop standards, testing methods and measurement techniques for industry. The Energy and Water Development subcommittee proposes to rescind $211 million. Within DOE, reductions would be taken from environmental research and restoration projects, solar and renewable energy research, and technology transfer from the national labs. Within DOE's general science programs, the only rescission would be $7.5 million from the Advanced Neutron Source (ANS), a program which has been proposed for termination in the Administration's FY 1996 budget request. ############### From jgosz@lternet.washington.edu Tue Feb 28 11:52:32 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA26442; Tue, 28 Feb 95 11:52:31 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23697; 28 Feb 95 11:52 EST Received: from dirt.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08700; Tue, 28 Feb 95 08:49:18 PST Received: by dirt.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02637; Tue, 28 Feb 95 08:48:34 PST Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 08:48:34 PST From: James Gosz Message-Id: <9502281648.AA02637@dirt.lternet.washington.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: DOE cuts Status: OR Uncertain Future for Department of Energy Fusion Program FYI No. 33, February 23, 1995 There were strong signals at a February 15 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment that DOE's fusion energy program is facing an uncertain future. Subcommittee chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) signaled his uneasiness about fusion in his opening remarks, saying, "We must decide if the modest success shown for the billions spent is worth billions more required to continue the program for at least another 30 years." Rohrabacher is intent on reducing spending for DOE programs under his subcommittee's jurisdiction -- both in FY 1996, and in "billions of dollars in future spending." First to testify was Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of the DOE Office of Energy Research. Krebs highlighted research progress at the Los Alamos, Fermi, and Princeton labs. She discussed the $100 million Science Facilities Initiative, DOE's budgetary response to the Drell panel's high energy physics program recommendations, and the shelving of the Advanced Neutron Source (ANS.) While complimenting Krebs on her moderate budget request and the ANS decision, Rohrabacher was quick to ask Krebs for her highest and lowest program priorities. He said the subcommittee must make budget decisions now, cautioning "we're going to establish them for you," if DOE does not prioritize. Rohrabacher turned to the fusion energy program, asking Krebs, "Is this still a viable option?" Krebs replied affirmatively, adding that substantial political will and money will be necessary. While committee members' questions covered other programs, fusion was a common topic. During one exchange, Krebs said that if the tokamak program was canceled, "there are alternatives to explore." Next to testify were the directors of five DOE laboratories, all of whom support the Science Facilities Initiative. There was much less consensus about where program cuts should be made, one director saying that arriving at judgements across various fields was difficult. Rohrabacher complained that no one wants to say where reductions should be made. He commented that while he was "very favorably" looking at the director's requests, they would be more likely to get what they want if they offered reduction recommendations. "Don't forget the position we are in," he said. Last to testify were Dr. Robin Roy of the Office of Technology Assessment and Dr. David Baldwin of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Roy directed a fusion energy workshop, and presented an 87-page OTA report on the program (to be summarized in a future FYI.) Roy questioned the program's projected costs and focus on tokamaks, saying about alternatives, "there is merit is examining them." Baldwin called the TPX "very important to the country," warning that fusion progress would be delayed by a decade without it. DOE's focus on tokamaks was based on their record of success, he explained. Rohrabacher opened the hearing declaring, "I have not prejudged individual programs, but, as you can see, some tough choices have to be made and this subcommittee will make them." The hearing closed on a discussion about tokamaks, the chairman saying, "I do think we should be looking at alternatives." ############### From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Mar 1 18:54:48 1995 Received: from uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AB00360; Wed, 1 Mar 95 18:54:46 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06714; 1 Mar 95 18:08 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09316; Wed, 1 Mar 95 15:03:12 PST Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 15:03:12 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: An EPA Ecosystem Document goes on Bene (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu, lmerpi@lternet.edu, harvey@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR EPA "Edgewater Consensus" document is available at: ftp://keck.tamu.edu/pub/bene/Edgewater_Consensus.txt In the same area, you can find the research plan of the interagency Subcommittee on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics. In March 1994, some of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's senior leadership met in Edgewater, Maryland to discuss increasing EPA's emphasis on "place-based" or ecosystem protection approaches. The following document represents the outcome of the meeting: "the Edgewater Consensus." While significant changes have happened since that meeting, the document provides useful insight into EPA's thinking. On February 7, 1995 EPA's Senior Leadership Council met to develop EPA's plan for community-based environmental protection -- a newer term for the place-driven approach. We hope to make available soon more information about the outcome of that meeting. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Mar 2 10:55:33 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02015; Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:55:29 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa18128; 2 Mar 95 10:55 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13444; Thu, 2 Mar 95 07:52:36 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA16122; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 08:50:42 -0700 Message-Id: <9503021550.AA16122@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 08:50:42 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: additional details on EPA funding opportunities Status: OR This has more detail than a previous announcement I sent. > From LEVINSON.BARBARA@epamail.epa.gov Thu Mar 2 05:39:15 1995 > Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV by lternet.lternet.washington.edu > (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12140; Thu, 2 Mar 95 04:41:01 PST > Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) > id <01HNNHYO0E288X1GXT@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Thu, > 02 Mar 1995 07:30:46 -0500 (EST) > Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #8611) > id <01HNNHXPGZC08Y7A16@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Thu, > 02 Mar 1995 07:30:34 -0500 (EST) > Received: with PMDF-MR; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 07:27:51 EST > Mr-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Thu, 02 Mar 1995 07:27:51 -0500 > Alternate-Recipient: prohibited > Disclose-Recipients: prohibited > Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 07:23:00 -0500 (EST) > From: BARBARA LEVINSON 202-260-5983 > Subject: RFA > To: jgosz@lternet.edu > Message-Id: <01HNNHYPOXUU8Y7A16@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> > X-Envelope-To: jgosz@lternet.edu > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="Boundary (ID w0t7s7nFreHCbjbGhZh8+g)" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > Posting-Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 07:25:00 -0500 (EST) > Importance: normal > Priority: normal > X400-Mts-Identifier: [;15727020305991/2568195@MAIL] > A1-Type: MAIL > Hop-Count: 1 > > > --Boundary (ID w0t7s7nFreHCbjbGhZh8+g) > Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > > Jim: Sorry this took so long. I was in the Galapagos and forgot > to change my message. I just returned. Barbara > > --Boundary (ID w0t7s7nFreHCbjbGhZh8+g) > MIME-version: 1.0 > Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822 > > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 18:50:00 EST > From: > "/R=MAIL/R=MRGATE/R=ATHENS/U=BARNWELL/FFN=TOM BARNWELL, U S EPA, ATHENS, GA/"@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov > Subject: 1995 GRANTS RFA Revised > To: LEVINSON.BARBARA@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV > MIME-version: 1.0 > Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > Posting-date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 00:00:00 EST > Importance: normal > A1-type: MAIL > > > The RFA was revised sometime today. I'm not sure what was > changed, maybe some dollar amounts, but at least this one is > much better formatted. > > Enjoy, > Tom Barnwell > > > > Copied from GOPHER.EPA.GOV 2/2/95..... > > > Grants RFA (26k) 0% > +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > EPA/600/F-95/002 > > > > The United States > Environmental Protection Agency > > > > > Announces > the Availability of > > 1995 Grants for Research > > on > Reducing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment and > Improving Risk Reduction Approaches > > APPLICATION SUBMISSION CLOSING DATE: APRIL 17, 1995 > > Apply to: > > U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > Office of Research and Development > Office of Exploratory Research (8703) > 401 M Street, SW > Washington, DC 20460 > > Introduction > > The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) > invites research grant applications in four areas of > special interest to its mission: > > 0 Human health risk assessment > > 0 Indoor air quality in large office buildings > > > 0 Air pollutants (particulate matter, tropospheric > ozone, and toxics) > > 0 Regional hydrologic vulnerability to global > climate change > > This invitation provides relevant background > information, summarizes EPA interests in the four > topic areas, and describes the application and > review process. > > Background > > EPA has increased funding for its investigator- > initiated research grants in fiscal year 1995. EPA > therefore is issuing two additional Requests for > Applications (RFAs), of which this is one. The > other is a joint solicitation with the National > Science Foundation (NSF) that identifies three > areas of interest to both agencies -- water and > watersheds; valuation and environmental policy; > and technology for a sustainable environment > (pollution prevention). > > Information on the NSF/EPA solicitation can be > obtained by contacting Dr. Penny Firth at NSF, > (703) 306-1480, or Dr. Melinda McClanahan at > EPA, (202) 260-7474. > > EPA Mission and R&D Strategy > > The mission of EPA -- and its unique role -- is > the joint protection of environmental quality and > human health through effective regulations and > other policy decisions. Achievement of this > mission requires the application of sound science > to the assessment of environmental problems and > evaluation of solutions. Moreover, a significant > challenge is to support long-term research that > anticipates future environmental problems and > strives to fill significant gaps in knowledge > relevant to meeting regulatory goals. > > > > This Request for Applications and the joint > EPA/NSF solicitation are important steps toward > ensuring that EPA is positioned to provide > national leadership as the country enters a new > generation of environmental protection. > > EPA recently reorganized its research programs to > focus on major areas of uncertainty associated > with assessment and reduction of risks to human > health and ecosystems. Through its laboratories > and through grants to universities and other not- > for-profit institutions, EPA will conduct and > support research in the subject matter areas where > regulatory officials face the most significant gaps > in knowledge about environmental risks. Because > risk is a function of both hazard and exposure, > EPA will promote research in both domains -- > according highest priority to those areas where > risk assessors are most in need of new concepts, > data, and methods. At the same time, EPA will > foster the development and evaluation of new risk > reduction technologies across a spectrum, from > pollution prevention through end-of-pipe controls, > to remediation and monitoring. > > Research Topics of Interest > > 1. Human Health Risk Assessment > > As described in the recent NRC report entitled > "Science and Judgement in Risk Assessment," > EPA uses health risk assessments to establish > exposure limits and set priorities for regulatory > activities. However, EPA is hampered by gaps in > methods, models, and data needed to support risk > assessments. In many cases default assumptions > are used to extrapolate from animals to humans, > from high to low doses, from acute to chronic > exposures, and from lowest effect levels to no- > effect levels. > > One of EPA's Office of Research and > Development's major research goals is to reduce > reliance on such assumptions. For example, EPA > needs biologically and physiologically-based > predictive models that will provide new concepts, > data, and methods that can replace default > assumptions. > > Research is needed on the following areas. > > > > > 0 Methods for estimating dose from cumulative > human exposure (e.g., via air, water, soil, and > food) to significant and persistent environmental > contaminants. This research is intended to > support evaluation of cumulative exposure and > dose apportionment and to demonstrate the > application of the methods developed to estimate > human health risks. > > 0 Principles governing age-dependent responses to > environmental contaminants and to improve > capabilities for animal-to-human extrapolation of > health risks. Neurotoxicity is a priority response > to be evaluated, but other end points will be > considered. > > 0 Quantitative toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic > interactions among chemicals in environmental > mixtures of members of chemical classes that > are significant environmental contaminants (e.g., > PAHs, halogenated solvents, metals, chlorinated > dioxins and furans, PCBs, and pesticides). > > 0 Toxicological interactions such as additivity, > synergism, and antagonism in such mixtures. > To improve the ability to estimate risks from > environmental exposures, a priority is research > that is focused on realistic exposures to > environmental contaminants. > > 0 Methods for quantifying non-cancer risks, such > as reproductive or developmental disorders. Of > special interest are methods that are based on > validated correlations between biochemical or > physiological markers and clinical end-points. > > 0 Inter-individual and intra-individual variability > in factors that affect susceptibility to toxicity > from environmental contaminants. Further, > research is needed to elucidate relationships > between such variability and disease outcome. > > 0 Human and animal reproductive processes > vulnerable to environmental contamination. > This research is needed to identify keystone or > sentinel species whose reproduction can be > monitored to signal potential risk to other > species, including humans. > > 0 Major uncertainties in risk assessment for > microbial pathogens in surface and drinking > waters. For example, critical gaps in knowledge > exist with respect to occurrence and levels of > crobial waterborne pathogens, infectious dose, > survival in the environment, and susceptibility to > treatment processes. > > 0 Other research areas as defined by proposers > that contribute to the overall goals of this > research topic. > > Approximately $3.0 million will be available from > fiscal year 1995 funds. A typical project will be > supported for a period of up to 3 years at > $150,000 per year. > > 2. Indoor Air Quality in Large Office Buildings > > The 1986 Superfund Amendments and > Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title IV directs EPA > to conduct and support research on indoor air > quality. An important aspect of this research is > improving the scientific understanding of, and > reducing the uncertainties surrounding, the > relationships among indoor air quality, human > exposures, and large building design and > operation. > > Of interest are cross-sectional and/or longitudinal > studies of large office buildings in relatively large > geographical regions across the United States that > characterize the relationships among: > > 0 the physical, mechanical and environmental > factors that influence indoor air quality; > > 0 relevant human exposures to aerosols, micro- > organisms, volatile organic compounds, and > other parameters such as air exchange rate and > pesticides; > > 0 the pathways through which these exposures > occur; > > 0 occupant perceptions of indoor air quality and > occupant productivity; > > 0 the extent to which human activity patterns, > building system operating practices or design, > and indoor or outdoor air quality affect these > exposures; and > > 0 other research areas as defined by proposers that > contribute to the overall goals of this research > topic. > > To provide high quality data necessary for intra- > and inter-building comparisons, minimum data > requirements and analytical protocols must be the > same or equivalent to those recommended in the > following two documents: "A Standardized EPA > Protocol for Characterizing Indoor Air Quality in > Large Office Buildings," (6/1/94) and "The United > States Environmental Protection Agency's Large > Building Studies Quality Assurance Overview > Document," (11/1/94). Copies of these two > documents can be obtained by contacting Ross > Highsmith at (919) 541-3121, or > pahl.dale@epamail.epa.gov. > > Approximately $1.5 million will be available from > fiscal year 1995 funds. A typical project will be > supported for a period of up to 3 years at > $150,000 per year. > > 3. Air Pollutants (particulate matter, > tropospheric ozone, and toxics) > > Certain widespread (criteria) air pollutants, such as > ozone and particulate matter (PM), continue to > pose serious public health risks for susceptible > members of the U.S. population or risks to > sensitive ecosystems. The Clean Air Act requires > that EPA establish and periodically review and > revise, as appropriate, criteria and National > Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for such > pollutants. The Act also requires State > Implementation Plans (SIPs) to be prepared, which > describe control strategies that States and local > authorities will employ to bring non-attainment > areas into compliance with the NAAQS. > > The EPA is seeking investigator-initiated grant > proposals aimed at generating new knowledge to: > > 1) improve the scientific basis for future > reassessment of the PM NAAQS; > > 2) reduce uncertainties in SIP modeling > projections for tropospheric ozone and > measurement of the effectiveness of SIPs in > meeting the ozone NAAQS; > > 3) increase the understanding of transport and > deposition of volatile and semi-volatile toxic > pollutants, and the ultimate exposure of > humans and ecosystems to them; and > > 4) other research areas as defined by proposers > that contribute to the overall goals of this > research topic. > > Of particular interest in relation to the first area > are projects that will provide information useful in > resolving controversies regarding epidemiologic > analyses that suggest associations between > increased mortality and morbidity, and particulate > matter concentrations markedly below the current > particulate matter NAAQS, including: > > 0 improving quantitative estimates of particulate > matter exposure; > > 0 employment of epidemiologic analyses that > more directly estimate potential effects; and > > 0 evaluation of potential confounding variables > (e.g., weather). > > Possible approaches may involve, but are not > restricted to, alternative biostatistical models, > coupling existing or refined epidemiologic > analyses to improved exposure data, case-control > or cross-sectional studies of mortality, indices of > morbidity, and/or biomarkers of effects. The > relative roles of fine versus coarse particles and of > chemical composition are of particular interest. > > Of interest in the second area is fundamental > research in the atmospheric chemistry, modeling, > emissions, and ambient measurement of > tropospheric ozone contributing to strengthened > control strategy development and improved > assessment of SIP effectiveness, including: > > 0 kinetic and mechanistic studies of gas-phase > reactions involving aromatic volatile organic > compounds (VOCs), biogenic VOCs, long-chain > alkenes and alkanes that participate in ambient > photochemistry, and studies on the link between > ozone and heterogeneous or aqueous-phase > reactions; > > 0 studies to explore boundary layer turbulence and > mixing, and their interaction with atmospheric > chemistry, and studies of quantitative techniques > for assessing the errors or uncertainties inherent > in concentration estimates from ozone air quality > modeling systems; > > 0 studies of large-scale fluxes of biogenic > emissions of VOCs and NOx for different > landscapes; > > 0 studies that may lead to new techniques for > ambient measurement, on short time scales, of > chemically-significant trace gases participating > in the photochemistry of ozone; and > > 0 both in-situ and remotely-sensed studies of > innovative methods for using ambient > concentration and meteorological measurements > in assessing the potential ozone response to > local changes in precursor > emissions/concentrations. > > Of interest in the third area are projects that > address compounds, including aerosols, semi- > volatile pollutants, and/or trace metals that travel > through the air pathway, especially those that are > persistent, mobile, or bioaccumulative. Also of > interest are projects that investigate major > uncertainties in: > > 0 transport and atmospheric phase equilibria; > > 0 composition versus particle size; > > 0 deposition to surfaces; > > 0 food chain uptake from atmospheric deposition; > and/or > > 0 dermal exposure from atmospheric deposition. > > Projects are encouraged that result in new or > improved databases, algorithms, models, or > modules for pre-existing models that can be used > by the scientific community in the analysis of > transport and fate of air toxics; the quantification > of air and air-deposition pathways; and the > assessment of risks for air toxics. > > Approximately $2.5 million will be available from > fiscal year 1995 funds. A typical project will be > supported for a period of up to 3 years at > $150,000 per year. > > > 4. Regional Hydrologic Vulnerability to > Global Climate Change > > Vulnerability research is a major responsibility of > EPA's Global Climate Change Research Program. > Understanding regional vulnerability to climate > change is critically dependent on understanding > how projected wide-spread climate change affects > the hydrologic watershed at scales where water > resources and related ecologic, economic, and > socio-political impacts are manifested. In order to > make informed decisions concerning the risks of > global change, the public and policymakers need a > better understanding of the hydrologic > vulnerabilities of regional systems. This, in turn, > requires improved methodologies that identify and > quantify physical and economic regional > vulnerabilities to competing hydrologic demands, > under current climate patterns and under projected > climate-change scenarios. > > Attempts to quantify these types of vulnerabilities > have been hampered by the absence of techniques > for performing regional analyses using projected > climate change. These regional analyses should > include both direct hydrologic response (e.g., soil > moisture, streamflow, stream temperature) as well > as secondary impacts upon regional ecology and > economics. Major sources of uncertainty in > conducting regional hydrologic analyses are the > sensitivities of regional hydrologic systems to > changing climate and future demands for water. > Accordingly, as part of EPA s interest in > watershed research, this solicitation invites > proposals that address climate change aspects of > watershed hydrology in the following areas: > > 0 Translation of climatic information into water > availability (e.g., soil moisture and streamflow) > and other ecologic variables as required by > water resource and natural resource modelers. > > 0 Linkage of water availability with water and > natural resource response prediction. > > 0 Linkage with economic activities in various > sectors (e.g., agriculture and forestry) > competing for the water resources, and > associated feedbacks. > > > 0 Other research areas as defined by proposers > that contribute to the overall goals of this > research topic. > > This solicitation seeks proposals that may include > a range of innovative research approaches, from > modeling to data analysis and observational and > experimental approaches, singly or in combination. > Proposals are encouraged without regard to > specific location of any proposed hydrologic > regional setting but should reflect the goal to > reduce uncertainties in watershed hydrology as > influenced by concerns about vulnerabilities to > climate change. > > Approximately $1.0 million will be available > from fiscal year 1995 funds. A typical > project will be supported for a period of up to 3 > years at $150,000 per year. > > > The Application > > Proposed projects must be research designed to > advance the state of knowledge in the indicated > areas of environmental science and technology. > Applications will not be accepted for routine > monitoring, state-of-the-art or market surveys, > literature reviews, development or > commercialization of proven concepts, or for the > preparation of materials and documents, including > process designs or instruction manuals. > > Application forms and instructions are available in > the EPA Research Grants Application Kit. > Interested investigators should review the > materials in this kit before preparing an > application for assistance. The kits can be > obtained at the following address: > > U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > Office of Research and Development > Office of Exploratory Research (8703) > 401 M Street, SW > Washington, DC 20460 > (202) 260-7474 > > Each application for assistance must consist of the > Application for Federal Assistance Forms > (Standard Forms -- SF 424 and 424A), separate > sheets that provide the budget breakdown for each > year of the project, the resumes for the principal > investigator and co-workers, the abstract of the > proposed project, and a project narrative that > includes a quality assurance narrative. All > certification forms (e.g., lobbying certification) > must be signed and included with the application. > > The closing date for application submission is > April 17, 1995 at 4:00 P.M. EST. > > To be considered, the original and eight copies of > the fully developed research grant application, > prepared in accordance with instructions in the > Application for Federal Assistance Forms, must be > received by the EPA Office of Exploratory > Research no later than the above closing date. > Informal, incomplete, or unsigned proposals will > not be considered. Completed applications should > be sent via regular or express mail to: > U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > Office of Research and Development > Office of Exploratory Research (8703) > 401 M Street, SW > Washington, DC 20460 > > Applications sent via express mail should have the > following telephone number listed on the express > mail label: (202) 260-7445 > > Special Instructions > > The following special instructions apply to all > applicants responding to this Request for > Application. > > 0 Applications must be unbound and clipped or > stapled. The SF-424 must be the first page of > the application. Budget information should > immediately follow the SF-424. All > certification forms should be placed at the end > of the application. > > 0 Applicants must be identified by printing "OER- > 95" in block 10 of the SF-424. This will > facilitate proper assignment and review of the > application. > > 0 A one-page abstract must be included with the > application. > > 0 The "project narrative" section of the application > must not exceed 25, consecutively-numbered, > 8 1/2 x 11 inch pages of standard type (i.e., 12 > point), including tables, graphs, and figures. For > purposes of this limitation, the "project narrative > section of the application consists of the > following six items: > > 1. Description of Project > 2. Objectives > 3. Results or Benefits Expected > 4. Approach > 5. General Project Information > 6. Quality Assurance > > Any attachments, appendices, and other references > for the narrative section may be included but must > remain within the 25-page limitation. Appendices > will not be considered an integral part of the > narrative. > > Items not included under the 25-page limitation > are the SF-424 and other forms, budgets, resumes, > and the abstract. Resumes must not exceed two > consecutively-numbered pages for each > investigator and should focus on education, > positions held, and most recent or related > publications. > > Applications not meeting these requirements will > be returned to the applicant without review. > > Quality Assurance > > Data sets resulting from EPA-funded > environmental research often are used directly by > regulatory officials when establishing standards or > when making other policy decisions. Explicit > indicators of data quality are essential for > determining whether a particular data set is > appropriate for use in a specific context. To that > end, EPA regulations require that grant-funded > projects address quality assurance. > > The application must include a quality assurance > narrative statement, not to exceed two pages, > which for each item listed below, either presents > the required information or provides justification > as to why the item does not apply to the proposed > research. > > 0 The intended use of the data and the associated > acceptance criteria for data quality (i.e., > precision, accuracy, representativeness, > completeness, and comparability). > > 0 Project requirements for precision, accuracy, > representativeness, completeness, and > comparability, and how these will be > determined. > > 0 Procedures for selection of samples or sampling > sites, and collection or preparation of samples. > > 0 Procedures for sample handling, identification, > preservation, transportation, and storage. > > 0 Description of measurement methods or test > procedures, with a statement of performance > characteristics if methods are non-standard. > > 0 Standard quality assurance/quality control > procedures (e.g., American Society for Testing > Materials, American Public Health Association, > etc.) to be followed. Non-standard procedures > must be documented. > > 0 Data reduction and reporting procedures, > including description of statistical analyses to be > used. > > Guidelines and Limitations > > All recipients are required to provide a minimum > of 1% of the total project cost, which may not be > taken from Federal sources. Subcontracts for > research to be conducted under the grant should > not exceed 40% of the total direct cost of the > grant for each year in which the subcontract is > awarded. > > Eligibility > > Academic and not-for-profit institutions located in > the U.S., and state or local governments are > eligible under all existing authorizations. Profit- > making firms are eligible only under certain laws, > and then under restrictive conditions, including the > absence of any profit from the project. Federal > agencies and federal employees are not eligible to > participate in this program. Potential applicants > who are uncertain of their eligibility should > contact EPA s Grants Operations Branch at (202) > 260-9266. > > > Review and Selection > > All grant applications are initially reviewed by > EPA to determine their legal and administrative > acceptability and responsiveness to this > solicitation. Acceptable applications are then > reviewed by an appropriate technical peer review > group. This review is designed to evaluate and > rank each proposal according to its scientific > merit. Each review group is composed primarily > of non-EPA scientists, engineers, social scientists, > and/or economists who are experts in their > respective disciplines. All reviewers are proficient > in the technical areas that they are reviewing. The > reviewers use the following criteria in their > reviews: > > 0 quality of the research plan (including > theoretical and/or experimental design, > originality, and creativity); > > 0 qualifications of the principal investigator > and staff, including knowledge of relevant > subject areas; > > 0 potential contribution of the research to > advancing scientific knowledge in the > environmental area; > > 0 availability and adequacy of facilities and > equipment; and > > 0 budget justification -- justification for equipment > will receive special attention. > > A summary statement of the scientific review of > the panel is provided to each applicant. > > Funding decisions are the sole responsibility of > EPA. Grants are selected on the basis of technical > merit, relevancy to the research priorities outlined, > program balance, and budget. > Proprietary Information > > By submitting an application in response to this > solicitation, the applicant grants EPA permission > to share the application with technical reviewers > both within and outside of the Agency. > > Applications containing proprietary or other types > of confidential information will be immediately > returned to the applicant without review. > > Funding Mechanism > > The funding mechanism for all awards issued > under this solicitation will consist of a grant > agreement between EPA and the recipient. > > In accordance with Public Law 95-224, a grant is > used to accomplish a public purpose of support or > stimulation authorized by Federal statute rather > than acquisition for the direct benefit of the > Agency. In using a grant instrument rather than a > cooperative agreement, EPA anticipates that there > will be no substantial involvement during the > course of the grant, between the recipient and the > Agency. > > Minority Institution Assistance > > Pre-application assistance is available upon request > for potential investigators representing institutions > identified by the Secretary, Department of > Education, as Historically Black Colleges or > Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Association of > Colleges and Universities (HACUs), or Native > American or Tribal Colleges. For further > information on minority assistance, contact > Charles Mitchell by telephone at (202) 260-7448, > by faxing a written request to (202) 260-0211, or > by mailing it to the above-listed address for EPA's > > Office of Exploratory Research. > > Contacts > > Additional general information on the grants > program may be obtained by contacting: > U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > Office of Exploratory Research (8703) > 401 M Street, SW > Washington, DC 20460 > Phone: (202) 260-7474 > Fax: (202) 260-0211 > > Applicants with technical questions may contact > the appropriate individual identified below. > > > > > Contacts for Research Topics of Interest > > Human Health Risk Assessment > > Kevin Garrahan (202) 260-2588 > > Indoor Air Quality in Large Office Buildings > > Ross V. Highsmith (919) 541-7828 > Kevin Y. Teichman (202) 260-7669 > > Air Pollutants (particulates, ozone, & toxics) > > James S. Vickery (919) 541-2184 (ozone) > Larry T. Cupitt (919) 541-2454 (toxics) > > Regional Hydrologic Vulnerability to Global > Climate Change > > Barbara M. Levinson (202) 260-5983 > Joel D. Scheraga (202) 260-4029 > > --Boundary (ID w0t7s7nFreHCbjbGhZh8+g) > MIME-version: 1.0 > Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822 > > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 18:50:00 EST > From: system@pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov > Subject: > MIME-version: 1.0 > Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > Posting-date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 18:50:00 EST > Importance: normal > A1-type: DOCUMENT > > > VMSmail To information: jim_duke, chapra, heaney, vorosmarty, skole, eric_wood, hatcher, huber, levinson > VMSmail CC information: herricks, lin, keinath, beck, armstrong, D_P_Loucks, ted, jeff, lancaster > > --Boundary (ID w0t7s7nFreHCbjbGhZh8+g)-- > From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Mar 2 13:26:14 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02600; Thu, 2 Mar 95 13:26:11 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09548; 2 Mar 95 13:26 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02479; Thu, 2 Mar 95 10:24:45 PST Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:24:45 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Babbit press release on cut in NBS funding (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu, lmerpi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu, lab@lternet.edu, erg@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Subj: SECRETARY'S STATEMENT To: #NBS_News_and_Bulletins@nps.gov, nbs@its.nbs.gov Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-description: cc:Mail note part Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Mary Helen Thompson 202/208-6416 For Immediate Release February 28, 1995 BABBITT SAYS NEW SCIENCE CUTS HURT BALD EAGLE, WATER, HUNTING; WARNS OF "FIRST TORCH" IN IDEOLOGICAL "BOOK BURNING." Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said today that a House subcommittee's decision to cut the National Biological Service by 20 percent for the remainder of this year, "shows their goals have nothing to do with the deficit and everything to do with ideology." Babbitt zeroed in on the unforeseen impacts of the overall rescission request by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies. He said that cutting this scientific research agency amounts to a tiny fraction of Federal spending, but eliminates a critical tool that preserves America's clear water, our hunting tradition, even our national bird. "As they start to abolish the National Biological Service, they should answer some important questions," said Babbitt. "How will poor and middle class Americans -- who can't afford Perrier or Evian -- be sure their drinking water is safe?" he asked. "Who do they expect will tell us what is killing off our national population of bald eagles? Who will stop the crippling zebra mussels as they spread from the Great Lakes down the Mississippi? And how will each state set reasonable bag limits for game bird hunting?" "Eliminating the NBS will simply allow Congress and the bureaucrats to make decisions based on whim and preference -- not on the facts," Babbitt said. Finally, Babbitt warned that this was only the first step in a campaign to eliminate natural resource science. "In their fine print at the bottom, authors of the Contract of America proposed the elimination of the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Biological Service, and the Bureau of Mines." "The proposed destruction of these three agencies is the resource equivalent of book burning," Babbitt said. "And now they have ignited their first torch." -DOI- ----- End forwarded message From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Mar 3 16:17:59 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07223; Fri, 3 Mar 95 16:17:56 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab06949; 3 Mar 95 16:17 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12770; Fri, 3 Mar 95 13:18:54 PST Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 13:18:54 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Information Superhighway (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu Cc: harvey@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Fish and Wildlife Service For release February 27, 1995 Craig L. Rieben 202-208-5634 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ON INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is offering computer users cruising the information highway a wealth of data on the conservation and management of this Nation's fish and wildlife resources and their habitat. The information available on the Service's Internet server is as diverse as the agency itself. The new World Wide Web server "home pages" contain summaries of virtually every aspect of the numerous activities and programs conducted by the Service. Examples include a current listing of all endangered and threatened species, information concerning recreational activities on the more than 500 national wildlife refuges, and valuable tips for travelers concerning the do's and don'ts of buying wildlife products in a foreign country. Also available is information on fisheries management and conservation, detailed descriptions of various popular wildlife species, and information on hunter/angler-supported programs to enhance fish and wildlife conservation. Service Director Mollie Beattie recently announced establishment of the newest Web server saying it is to provide a "front door" for the agency on the Internet and a link to virtually all other Internet servers maintained by the Service. "Modern wildlife conservation and management increasingly depend on the effective sharing of information among all concerned," she said. "I am confident this effort can greatly enhance our collective conservation efforts by expanding the availability of information concerning wildlife and their habitats." Accessing the World Wide Web server requires a computer program that can communicate with hypertext transfer protocol (http), such as Mosaic. "http://www.fws.gov/" is the Internet address for the new server. Information is also available to those with only Internet E-mail text transfer capabilities through a separate "dial-a- file" library server maintained by the Service. Send an E-mail message to "R9IRMLIB@mail.fws.gov" to access this server. On the subject line (not the body of the message), type SEND HELP and you will be sent a user's guide including an index of topics in the library. To receive a specific document, on the subject line type the command SEND followed by the document name as listed in the index. No text is necessary in the body of the message. A server established recently by the Service's National Wetlands Inventory office is just one example of how this new technology can bolster conservation activities. For the past 13 years, this office has been conducting an inventory of the Nation's wetlands and producing geospatial data on magnetic media. The material depicts the relationship of wetlands habitat to U.S. Geological Survey maps. Last July, the office began offering the capability of downloading this information from an "anonymous FTP" server (address "enterprise.nwi.fws.gov") accessible through the Internet. Since that time, more than 64,000 wetlands maps have been downloaded to users from some 25 countries around the world. The availability of this service has resulted in a significant savings to both the user and the Service. The maps normally cost a little more than $9 apiece when mailed, so the public has realized a savings of nearly $600,000 while the Service has reduced its administrative costs substantially. As another example, the Service's National Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon, has also experienced a number of successes through information sharing over the Internet. For example, a Service criminologist recently passed on information about a new forensic technique for identifying elephant ivory to a scientist in New Zealand. This tip ultimately led to solving a significant wildlife crime case in that country. From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Mar 3 16:18:11 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07228; Fri, 3 Mar 95 16:18:09 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07043; 3 Mar 95 16:18 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12739; Fri, 3 Mar 95 13:14:16 PST Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 13:14:16 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Review Process (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 11:47:56 +0600 From: Anthony Socci Subject: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Review Process For your information, this is an advance release of a Federal Register notice that is expected to appear the week of March 6, 1995. It describes how to provide input to the U. S. Government review process of the IPCC Working Group II Second Assessment Report. Interested experts are invited to participate. Please circulate this notification to interested groups. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 95- __ (scheduled to appear week of March 6, 1995) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration ACTION: Notice of the availability of draft report and request for comment. SUMMARY: Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has prepared a draft 1995 Assessment of Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation. The IPCC Secretariat requires comments on this report from national governments by April 28, 1995, so that the Secretariat can meet its obligations to member governments of the IPCC. The U. S. Government is expected to receive its copy of this assessment for formal government comment on March 6, 1995. Dr. Robert Harriss, Director, Science Division, Office of Mission to Planet Earth, on behalf of the U. S. Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) is responsible for coordinating the preparation of the comments of the United States Government. Through this notice, the SGCR is announcing the availability of the draft 1995 Assessment and requesting comments on this report from experts and interested groups and individual. These comments will be reviewed, combined, and incorporated as appropriate, in the process of preparing the set of official U. S. comments to the IPCC. DATES: Written comments (hard copy and if possible on a 3.5 inch diskette in either Microsoft Word or WordPerfect format) on the draft 1995 Assessment should be submitted on or before March 31, 1995. The USGCRP does not anticipate extending this deadline because the member countries of the IPCC have established a timetable that requires input by April 28, 1995. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted either by mailing to: IPCC WG II Comments, Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program, 300 D Street, SW, Suite 840, Washington, DC 20024, or by E-mail in ASCII format on Internet to: "wg2@usgcrp.gov". A list of chapters making up the draft 1995 Assessment is included with this notice. Review is sought by those having specific expertise or interest in the various aspects of the assessment. Copies of individual chapters making up the draft 1995 Assessment can be obtained by: (1) telephone request to Mr. Earley Green at (202) 651-8240; (2) sending E-mail to "office@usgcrp.gov"; (3) faxing a request to (202) 554-6715; or (4) sending a letter to the USGCRP Office directed to Mr. Earley Green at the address shown above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Desiree Martinez, Science Division, Office of Mission to Planet Earth, at (202) 358-2102. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was jointly established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization to conduct periodic assessments of the state of knowledge concerning global climate change. The IPCC has formed working groups to study various aspects of climate change. Working Group I addresses the state of the science concerning what is happening and is projected to happen to the climate; Working Group II addresses the state of the science concerning (i) vulnerability to and impacts of climate change and (ii) adaptation and mitigation strategies; and Working Group III addresses the state of science and understanding concerning economics and cross-cutting issues associated with climate change. Each Working Group is charged with issuing periodic assessments. The first Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, for example, was prepared in 1990. Periodic assessment reports such as this provide a comprehensive statement of the state of knowledge concerning topics such as scientific information, environmental impacts, response strategies, and other issues concerning climate change. The draft 1995 Assessment represents the result of Working Group II efforts since its inception to address the consequences and impacts of climate change and response strategies focusing on mitigation and adaptation. II Public Input Process The member countries of the IPCC established a timetable that requires comments from governments be received by April 28, 1995 so that the IPCC Secretariat can meet its obligations for a timely completion of the 1995 IPCC Assessment. The Subcommittee on Global Change Research is responsible for coordinating preparation of the U. S. Government response, and through this notice is seeking the views of experts and interested groups and individuals to help in the formulation of its response. Comments that are provided will be reviewed, integrated, and used, as appropriate, in the preparation of the official U. S. comments. In this review process, the emphasis should be on providing detailed recommendations on specific chapters for which the reviewer has established expertise or interest. To be most useful, comments should be specific in suggesting wording changes to the text of a particular chapter and, where appropriate, offer supporting information and peer-reviewed references supporting the proposed changes. Comments on the overall tone and scientific validity of the chapter and comments expressing agreement and disagreement with specific major points in the Executive Summary of the chapters are also solicited. Reviewers should request for review those specific chapters of the IPCC Working Group II Second Assessment Report for which they have expertise or special interest. The material available for review includes 25 chapters (with introductory materials and two appendices, as outlined below. A copy of the draft Summary for Policymakers will also be provided for each reviewer in order to provide an opportunity for the reviewer to consider the consistency of the chapter and the selection and representation of its major points in the draft Summary for Policymakers. A. Chapters relating to assessment of impacts and adaptation options for ecological, climatic, or physiographic systems. 1. Forests 2. Grasslands and Rangelands 3. Desert Regions 4. Land Degradation, including Desertification 5. Mountain Regions 6. Non-Coastal Wetlands 7. The Cryosphere 8. Oceans and Large Lakes 9. Coastal Zones and Small Islands 10. Freshwater Systems and Hydrology B. Chapters relating to assessment of impacts and adaptation options for socio-economic systems. 11. Energy, Industry, and Transportation 12. Human Settlements 13. Agriculture 14. Freshwater Supply and Quality 15. Forestry 16. Fisheries 17. Insurance 18. Human Health C. Chapters relating to assessment of mitigation options. 19. Energy Supply 20. Industry 21. Transportation 22. Human Settlements 23. Agriculture 24. Forests 25. Cross-Sectoral Options D. Appendices relating to methodologies and inventories. 26. Assessments of Impacts and Adaptation Options (Not available for review, having been previously reviewed and approved by IPCC). 27. Assessments of Mitigation Options 28. Inventory of Technologies, Methods, and Practices III. Request for Submission of Public Comments Interested persons and scientific experts are invited to submit comments on the draft 1995 Assessment. An information sheet providing specific requests for formatting submissions will be provided with each mailing of a chapter. Comments should be submitted to the address shown in the ADDRESSES section, and must be received by the date indicated in the DATES section of this notice. Submission should be made by mail (preferably providing a computer diskette in addition to paper copy), by fax (for short submissions only, please) or by E-mail on Internet; comments submitted orally will not be accepted. All comments received will be available for public inspection in the NASA Library, which is located in Room 1J20, of the NASA Office Building, 300 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20546. Dr. Charles F. Kennel Associate Administrator Office of Mission to Planet Earth Michael C. MacCracken Director, Office of the USGCRP 300 D Street, SW, Suite 840 Washington DC 20024 Tel. (202) 651-8240 or 8250 (office secretary) Tel. (202) 651-8252 (office and voicemail) Fax. (202) 554-6715 or (202) 554-6858 E-mail: mmaccracken@usgcrp.gov From smartin@lternet.edu Sun Mar 5 18:20:44 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12361; Sun, 5 Mar 95 18:20:43 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21795; 5 Mar 95 18:20 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21695; Sun, 5 Mar 95 15:20:48 PST Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 15:20:48 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: REMINDER--Newsletter contributions overdue To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This is just a reminder to those who agreed to contribute something for the newsletter by February 28. Please forward your material to me as soon as possible and/or let me know if you will be unable to get it in to me. If you have already communicated with me, please ignore this message. Thank you! >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications/Public Information CFR, AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> From jgosz@turututu.unm.edu Mon Mar 6 10:05:33 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01267; Mon, 6 Mar 95 10:05:30 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11726; 6 Mar 95 10:05 EST Received: from turututu.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24540; Mon, 6 Mar 95 07:04:14 PST Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28630; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 08:02:20 -0700 Message-Id: <9503061502.AA28630@turututu.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 6 Mar 95 08:02:19 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF funding opportunity in Environmental Geochemistry Status: OR > From stisserv-sender@x.nsf.gov Mon Mar 6 08:00:14 1995 > Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) > id AA28599; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 08:00:09 -0700 > Received: (drstis@localhost) by x.nsf.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) id KAA29930 > Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 10:00:22 -0500 > Message-Id: <199503061500.KAA29930@x.nsf.gov> > From: STISSERVE - NSF E-mail Server > To: jgosz@turututu.unm.edu (James Gosz) > Subject: nsf9549.txt (complete) ascii > > > ------ begin of nsf9549.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > Title : NSF 95-49 -- ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMISTRY AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY Research > at the Interfaces of Geochemistry, Hydrology, Coastal Sciences, > Chemistry, Microbial and Molecular Biology, Colloid and Transport > Engineering, and Mathematics > Type : Program Guideline > NSF Org: GEO > Date : March 1, 1995 > File : nsf9549 > > > > > ENVIRONMENTAL > GEOCHEMISTRY AND > BIOGEOCHEMISTRY > Research at the Interfaces of > Geochemistry, Hydrology, Coastal > Sciences, Chemistry, Microbial and > Molecular Biology, Colloid and Transport > Engineering, and Mathematics > __________________________________________ > Announcement > > > > DIVISION OF EARTH SCIENCES > DIVISION OF OCEAN SCIENCES > DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY > DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY > DIVISION OF CHEMICAL AND TRANSPORT > SYSTEMS > DIVISION OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES > > > > DEADLINE DATE: May 1, 1995 > > > > > > NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION > > > > Program Description > > The goal of the Environmental Geochemistry > and Biogeochemistry activity is to enhance > fundamental, interdisciplinary research on chemical > processes that determine the behavior and > distribution of inorganic and organic materials in > environments near the Earths surface. Of particular > importance are projects that characterize chemical > parameters in both perturbed and unperturbed > natural systems, clarify the chemical processes or > behavior observed, or combine observations and > interpretations into predictive models. > > One of the biggest challenges facing scientists > and engineers involved in environmental research is > understanding the highly interrelated physical, > chemical and biological feedback loops commonly > present in the Earths natural systems. The > Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry > research activity addresses this challenge by > supporting studies on the physical-chemical-biotic > behavior of chemical substances within one > environment or by emphasizing research that focuses > on a common chemical theme throughout a variety > of environments. Environments of interest are soils, > groundwaters, surface waters and coastal marine > areas. > > This research activity encourages integration of > critical inquiry from the disciplines of inorganic, > organic, bioinorganic, and bioorganic chemistry > (reactions in complex environments), geochemistry > (characterization and distribution of chemical > compounds in natural systems), hydrology (fluid > flow and material transport), biology (dynamic > influences of microbes and other communities), > colloid and transport engineering (including generic > mechanisms in porous media), and mathematics > (analytical, statistical, and computational modeling > in complex nonlinear systems) to address > environmental problems. Research projects > combining approaches from other chemically-based > science or engineering fields of study with these > disciplines are also appropriate. More focused > research should be submitted to disciplinary > programs rather than to this program. > > Research supported through this activity will > facilitate development of a multi-faceted perspective > and predictive understanding of the complex > interactions of the geosphere, hydrosphere, and > biosphere as they relate to chemical transport. The > results will contribute to the knowledge base used by > management and policy decision-makers in > planning, development, and remediation activities > involving both continental and coastal oceanic > environments. > > Selected examples of research areas suitable for > study under this research activity follow: > > o the role of inorganic and organic compounds > and microbes in natural waters, soils, and > sediments, and their effect on processes such as > speciation and transport behavior of > contaminants and nutrients at the molecular > level; > > o the effects of chemical, biological, geological, > and anthropogenic factors on chemical sorption, > transport, and bioavailability in natural waters, > soils and sediments; > > o modeling that integrates solute/suspension > transport and geochemical reactions involving > inorganic and organic substances and > microorganisms with groundwater flow > capabilities; developing the means for > correlating chemical observations among > different space and time scales (e.g., molecular > and laboratory level to field and watershed > level); > > o holistic studies of the geosphere, hydrosphere, > and biosphere that elucidate a natural systems > response to, and recovery from, chemical > perturbations caused by natural phenomena or > human activities; > > o national or international workshops or > conferences on appropriate topics that > emphasize interdisciplinary research in > environmental geochemistry and > biogeochemistry. > > > The emphasis of this environmental activity > derives largely from discussions and reports > developed in two community workshops, recently > culminating in the Workshop Report on an NSF > Research Initiative in Environmental Geochemistry > and Biogeochemistry. A copy of the report is > available from the Division of Earth Sciences, 4201 > Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. > > For further information about the > Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry > research activity, contact Maryellen Cameron, > Division of Earth Sciences, at (703) 306-1554; > Margaret Cavanaugh, Division of Chemistry, at > (703) 306-1842; Donald Rice, Division of Ocean > Sciences, at (703) 306-1589; Cliff Dahm, Division of > Environmental Biology, at (703) 306-1479; or Mike > Roco, Division of Chemical and Transport Systems, > at (703) 306-1371. > > Preparation and Submission of Proposals > > Proposals submitted in response to this > opportunity announcement will be accepted from > colleges, universities, and other not-for-profit > institutions in the U.S. Federal (including FFRDCs), > state, and local government affiliated organizations > are not considered eligible. > > Award durations of two to three years will be > considered. Average annual award levels are > anticipated to be approximately $50,000 to $150,000 > per senior investigator. The number of awards will > depend on a variety of factors, including quality of > proposals submitted and linkages with other NSF > activities and programs. In FY 1995, NSF expects to > make awards totaling approximately $3.0 million for > this activity. > > Proposals submitted in response to this > announcement must be received no later than May 1, > 1995 and must meet all guidelines specified in the > NSF brochure, Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF > 94-2. Single copies of this brochure are available at > no cost from: > > NSF Publications and Supplies Unit > 4201 Wilson Boulevard > Room P-15 > Arlington, VA 22230 > Telephone (703) 306-1130, or > via e-mail from Internet: pubs@nsf.doc > > The GPG is available in most university offices > of sponsored research. It contains the forms needed > to prepare the proposal and instructions for filling > them out. > > The Environmental Geochemistry and > Biogeochemistry (EGB) name and announcement > number should be referenced in the upper left corner > of the proposal cover sheet. Cover sheets not bearing > the words "Environmental Geochemistry and > Biogeochemistry" but under current consideration by > NSF and otherwise meeting the requirements of this > announcement may be considered for support under > this program. > > Twenty copies of each proposal, including one > copy bearing original signatures, should be mailed > to: > > Announcement No. NSF 95-49 > National Science Foundation > Room P60 - PPU > 4201 Wilson Blvd. > Arlington, VA 22230 > > > Proposal Review: > > Proposals will be evaluated by ad hoc mail > review, panel review, or a combination of the two in > accordance with established Foundation procedures > and the four general criteria described in the GPG. > An additional factor in the evaluation process will be > the potential benefits from synergism among the > various disciplinary components involved in the > proposed research. > > Review and processing of proposals require > approximately six months. > > Grant Administration: > > Grants awarded as a result of this > announcement are administered in accordance with > the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant > General Conditions," or FDP-II, "Federal > Demonstration Project General Terms and > Conditions," depending on the grantee organization. > Copies of these documents are available at no cost > from the NSF Publications and Supplies Unit, phone > (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail pubs@nsf.gov > (Internet). More comprehensive information is > contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 88- > 47, July 1989), for sale through the Superintendent > of Documents, Government Printing Office (GPO), > Washington, D.C. 20402. The telephone number at > GPO is (202) 783-3238 for subscription information. > If the submitting institution has never received an > NSF award, it is recommended that appropriate > administrative officials become familiar with the > policies and procedures in the NSF Grant Policy > Manual which are applicable to most NSF awards. > If a proposal is recommended for an award, the NSF > Division of Grants and Agreements will request > certain organizational, management, and financial > information, including a certification of civil rights > compliance. These requirements are described in > Chapter III of the NSF Grant Policy Manual. One > copy of the Grant Policy Manual will be provided > free of charge to any new grantee. > > Related programs: > > NSF disciplinary programs supporting research > related to Environmental Geochemistry and > Biogeochemistry include: > > Division of Earth Sciences (703-306-1550) > Petrology and Geochemistry > Geology and Paleontology > Hydrologic Sciences > > Division of Chemistry (703-306-1840) > Analytical and Surface Chemistry > Inorganic, Bioinorganic, or Organometallic > Chemistry > Organic Synthesis and Dynamics > Environmental Biotechnology > > Office of Polar Programs (703-306-1033) > Arctic Systems Science > > Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences > (703-306-1440) > Biochemistry and Molecular Structure and > Function > Environmental Biotechnology > > Division of Environmental Biology (703-306-1480) > Systematic and Population Biology > Ecological Studies > Long-Term Ecological Research > Land-Margin Ecosystem Research > Terrestrial Ecology (TECO) and Global > Change > > Division of Bioengineering and Environmental > Systems (703-306-1320) > Bioengineering > Environmental and Ocean Systems > > Division of Chemical and Transport Systems > (703-306-1371) > Interfacial, Transport and Separation Processes > Fluid, Particulate and Hydraulic Systems > > Division of Civil and Mechanical Structures > (703-306-1360) > Geomechanical, Geotechnical and Geo- > Environmental Systems > > Division of Atmospheric Sciences (703-306-1528) > Atmospheric Chemistry > Earth System History > > Division of Ocean Sciences (703-306-1580) > Biological Oceanography > Chemical Oceanography > Coastal Ocean Processes > Marine Geology and Geophysics > Marine Aspects of Earth System History > > > Division of Mathematical Sciences (703-306-1870) > Applied Mathematics > Computational Mathematics > Statistics and Probability > > > Other Research Activities: > NSF/EPA Partnership for Environmental > Research (703-306-1480) > Water and Energy: Atmospheric, Vegetative, > and Earth Interactions (703-306-1549) > > > > > The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides > awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The > awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of the > research and preparation of the results for publication. The > Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility > for such findings or interpretations. > > The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of > all qualified scientists and engineers, and strongly > encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities > to compete fully in any of the research and research- > related programs described in this document. > > In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations > and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, > age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded > from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be > subjected to discrimination under any program or activity > receiving financial assistance from the National Science > Foundation. > > Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers > with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special > assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities > (investigators and other staff, including student research > assistants) to work on NSF-supported projects. For more > information see GPG, the program announcement, or > contact the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636. > > Upon completion of the project a Final Project > Report (NSF Form 98A), including the Part IV Summary, will > be required. Applicants should review this form prior to > proposal submission so that appropriate tracking methods > are included in the proposal plan to ensure that complete > information will be available at the end of the project. > > The Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for > the Deaf) capability, which enables individuals with > hearing impairment to communicate with the NSF > Information Center about NSF programs, employment, or > general information. The telephone number is > (703) 306-0090. > > Activities described in this publication are in > categories 47.076, Education and Human Resources; 47.050, > Geosciences; 47.041, Engineering; 47.049, Mathematical and > Physical Sciences; and 47.074, Biological Sciences > in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). > > > > PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS: The > information requested on proposal forms is > solicited under the authority of the National Science > Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in > connection with the selection of qualified proposals and > may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants > as part of the review process; to applicant institutions/ > grantees; to provide or obtain data regarding the application > review process, award decisions, or the administration > of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers > and researchers as necessary to complete assigned work; > and to other governmental agencies in order to coordinate > programs. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal > Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and > NSF-51, 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995), > "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 59 > Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of > the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full > and complete information, however, may reduce the > possibility of your receiving an award. > > Public reporting burden for this collection of > information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, > including the time for reviewing instructions. Send > comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect > of this collection of information, including suggestions > for reducing the burden, to: > > Herman G. Fleming > Reports Clearance Officer > Contracts, Policy and Oversight > National Science Foundation > Arlington, VA 22230 > > and/or to > > Office of Management and Budget > OIRM - Paperwork Reduction > Project (3145-0058) > Washington, DC 20503 > > OMB 3145-0058 > NSF 95-49 > (new) > PT 18 34 40 42 > 0605000 0606010 1002003 1002016 1002027 > 1005002 1005013 1005016 1005019 1005051 > 1007000 1007001 1007002 1007003 007010 > 1007012 1007040 1008001 1008002 1010000 > 1002016 1003000 1013036 1230010 > > NSF 95-49 > (new) > ------ end of nsf9549.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > From jgosz@turututu.unm.edu Mon Mar 6 10:10:30 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01289; Mon, 6 Mar 95 10:10:28 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa13076; 6 Mar 95 10:10 EST Received: from turututu.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24557; Mon, 6 Mar 95 07:07:17 PST Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28655; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 08:05:24 -0700 Message-Id: <9503061505.AA28655@turututu.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 6 Mar 95 08:05:23 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: El Nino contacts Status: OR > From stisserv-sender@x.nsf.gov Mon Mar 6 08:00:21 1995 > Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) > id AA28607; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 08:00:15 -0700 > Received: (drstis@localhost) by x.nsf.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) id KAA29962 > Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 10:00:27 -0500 > Message-Id: <199503061500.KAA29962@x.nsf.gov> > From: STISSERVE - NSF E-mail Server > To: jgosz@turututu.unm.edu (James Gosz) > Subject: pr9514.txt (complete) ascii > > > ------ begin of pr9514.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > Title : DIAL-A-SCIENTIST STUDYING EL NINO > Type : Press Release > NSF Org: OD / LPA > Date : February 28, 1995 > File : pr9514 > > > Cheryl Dybas February 28, 1995 > (703) 306-1070 NSF PR 95-14 > > DIAL-A-SCIENTIST STUDYING EL NINO > > Scientists at the National Science Foundation-supported > > National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in > > Boulder, Colorado, and at universities around the country > > believe that the climate phenomenon called El Nino was a > > major factor in Januarys California rains and floods, and > > also brought major drought to Australia, although rain > > recently returned there. > > El Nino develops every few years and involves a > > Pacific Ocean warming of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius, which > > typically extends from the Peruvian coast to the > > International Date Line, spanning about 100 degrees of > > longitude, or onequarter of the earths surface. This > > change in sea temperature alters tropical weather > > patterns, and can influence short-term climate over the > > globe through changes in atmospheric circulation. El Nino > > has led to droughts in Australia, Indonesia, the > > Philippines, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa, > > while causing excessive rainfall in Peru, Ecuador, and the > > central Pacific. > > Scientists have noted three types of weather > > anomalies over North America that characteristically > > accompany an El Nino episode: (1) above- > > normal rainfall in the southeastern United States and Gulf > Coast; (2) above-normal temperatures in the Pacific > Northwest, Alaska, and western Canada; and (3) below- > normal temperatures in the southeastern United States. > > > Major El Nino events during the winters of 1940-41, > 1982-83, 1992-93 and now 1994-95 have produced > exceptionally wet weather in U.S. west coast and southwest > states. But during more moderate El Nino events (e.g., > the winters of 1986-87, 198788), very dry conditions have > been the rule, contributing to the California drought of > the late 1980s. During strong El Ninos, sea-surface > temperatures and tropical convection increase in the > central Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line, > carrying the jet stream in midlatitudes farther east than > normal, so that the jet stream and associated storm tracks > often extend to California. > > Learning to recognize El Nino signals is a special > research area at NCAR, as well as at a number of > universities throughout the U.S. In-depth information on > El Nino is available by contacting the scientists listed > below: > > Selected El Nino Scientists at NCAR: > > Kevin Trenberth (tel. 303-497-1318) and James Hurrell > (tel. 303497-1383); Mechanisms and evolution of El Nino > events over the past 100 years > > Michael Glantz, (tel. 303-497-8119); Societal aspects of > El Nino events, including the use of El Nino information > in decisionmaking > > Gerald Meehl (tel. 303-497-1331); Climate model simulation > of El Nino > > Selected NSF-funded El Nino Scientists at Other > Institutions: > > Timothy Barnett (tel. 619-534-3223); Climate Research > Group, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of > California, San Diego; Forecasts of El Nino > > Mark Cane (tel. 914-365-8344); Columbia Universitys > Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York; > Forecasts and modeling of El Nino > > James OBrien (tel. 904-644-4581), Department of > Meteorology, Florida State University; Forecasts and > modeling of El Nino > > Eugene Rasmussen (tel. 301-405-5376), Department of > Meteorology, University of Maryland, and the Cooperative > Institute for Climate Studies, University of Maryland; > Behavior of El Nino > > > J. Michael Wallace (tel. 206-543-7390), Department of > Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle; > Analysis of El Nino observations during the last 100 years > > J. Shukla (tel. 301-902-1243), IGES, Center for Ocean-Land > Atmosphere; El Nino predictability > > Peter Webster (tel. 303-492-5882), University of Colorado; > El Nino theory and atmospheric dynamics > > David Neelin (tel. 310-206-0651), UCLA; Tropical ocean > atmosphere coupling and theory > > Roger Lukas (tel. 808-956-7896), University of Hawaii; > Ocean dynamics and observations > > -end- > > ------ end of pr9514.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > From jgosz@turututu.unm.edu Mon Mar 6 10:12:15 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01296; Mon, 6 Mar 95 10:12:09 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa13639; 6 Mar 95 10:12 EST Received: from turututu.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24552; Mon, 6 Mar 95 07:05:38 PST Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28641; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 08:03:44 -0700 Message-Id: <9503061503.AA28641@turututu.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 6 Mar 95 08:03:43 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF Multiuser equipment competition Status: OR > From stisserv-sender@x.nsf.gov Mon Mar 6 08:00:23 1995 > Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) > id AA28605; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 08:00:14 -0700 > Received: (drstis@localhost) by x.nsf.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) id KAA29953 > Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 10:00:26 -0500 > Message-Id: <199503061500.KAA29953@x.nsf.gov> > From: STISSERVE - NSF E-mail Server > To: jgosz@turututu.unm.edu (James Gosz) > Subject: nsf9537.txt (complete) ascii > > > ------ begin of nsf9537.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > Title : NSF 95-37 - Multi-User Biological Equipment and Instrumentation > Resources Instrument Development for Biological Research > Type : Program Guideline > NSF Org: BIO / BIR > Date : February 27, 1995 > File : nsf9537 > > > > MULTI-USER BIOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTATION RESOURCES > INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH > > Program Announcement > > Directorate for Biological Sciences > Division of Biological Instrumentation and Resources > National Science Foundation > > > Revision of NSF 92-126 > > > MULTI-USER BIOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT and INSTRUMENTATION RESOURCES > > The MULTI-USER BIOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT (MBE) program provides support > for the purchase of major items of instrumentation, for which NSF > funding is requested in the range from $20,000 to $400,000, that > will be shared by a number of funded investigators. The program > will support > > -the purchase of single items of biological equipment, or > > -the establishment of instrumentation resources consisting of > several items of equipment with a related purpose, or the > purchase of additional equipment for such resources. > > > DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION > > > Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must be > received by the NSF no later than May 1 of each year. In case > delivery is delayed by causes out of the control of the > investigator, adequate evidence of meeting the deadline will be a > postmark of no later than April 24, or an overnight express > delivery invoice dated no later than April 30. Late proposals will > be returned without review. When an approved method of electronic > submission is available, proposals submitted electronically will be > dated when they enter the NSF system. > > Proposals will be considered by an Advisory Panel that typically > meets in August. Funding will not be available, in most cases, > before October of the same year. > > > CRITERIA FOR PROPOSALS TO THE MBE PROGRAM > > The Division of Biological Instrumentation and Resources supports > instrumentation activities to aid the research efforts covered by > the NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences. The work to be done > using instrumentation provided under the Multi-User Biological > Equipment program must fall within the scope of the NSF Divisions > of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, Integrative Biology and > Neuroscience, or Environmental Biology. > > In general, instrumentation to be used in the conduct of > disease-oriented research, including the etiology, diagnosis or > treatment of physical or mental disease, abnormality or malfunction > in human beings or animals, or the design and testing of drugs fo > r treatment of such conditions is not appropriate for > consideration. Instrumentation involved with studies of basic > biological or biophysical processes will be appropriate for > consideration, whether or not the instrumentation has an eventual > application to disease-related studies. > > The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences understands that some > pieces of equipment are sufficiently expensive that they are > unlikely to be funded by a single Federal agency. For that reason, > parallel Multi-User Biological Equipment proposals may be sent to > the NSF and to other Federal agencies for simultaneous re > view. It is important to identify on the NSF cover sheet the other > agencies to which parallel proposals are submitted, in order to > facilitate coordinated funding if an award is made. > > The Directorate for Biological Sciences recognizes the need for > shared computational resources. Applications for workstations and > mid-range computing machines are appropriate as multi-user > equipment proposals and are encouraged. > > > REQUIREMENTS FOR SHARING MULTI-USER EQUIPMENT > > The MBE program requires that Multi-User Biological Equipment > proposals include an assurance that the requested instrumentation > will be used by a minimum of three independent investigators. Such > proposals may describe the research projects of no more than seven > major user groups. It is expected that a majority of the major > user groups will have outside, peer-reviewed funding. In most > cases, and especially for predominantly undergraduate institutions, > a commitment by an institution to provide an investigator (or an > adequately-supervised student research group) with multi-year > continuing research support will be considered on the same basis as > outside support. In general, the research groups that will use the > instrumentation will be involved in independent research activity. > Use of equipment in educational activities is encouraged, > consistent with the research needs of the proposed projects. > > With some classes of instrumentation, such as nuclear magnetic > resonance spectrometers and x-ray diffractometers, some of the user > groups may participate in the use of the instrument through well > defined and clearly described collaborations. In all cases, the > proposed instrumentation must be used by a minimum of two > individuals who are competent to independently operate and use the > proposed instrumentation in their individual research. The > remaining users may function through collaborations; however, in no > case may more than 60% of the instrument time be allocated to one > research group and its collaborators. To achieve these goals, the > MBE program encourages applications from user groups that include > individuals from different departments and institutions. > > Equipment proposals not meeting these guidelines can be considered > by any of the disciplinary research programs in the Directorate for > Biological Sciences. Individuals interested in single-user > equipment should consult a program officer in the field of > biological research corresponding to their interests. > > In some cases, there may be a large number of research groups that > would propose to make use of an instrument. For example, some > computer systems may be used by more than one hundred user groups > with no one group using more than a small percentage of the > instrument time. Proposals for this type of instrumentation should > include research descriptions of up to seven representative user > groups and summarize the research projects, funding, and other > characteristics of the additional research groups in table format. > A clear financial plan for the maintenance and operation of > instrumentation serving very large groups of investigators is > particularly important. > > > PROPOSAL PREPARATION > > Proposals submitted in response to this program announcement must > be prepared and submitted in accordance with the guidelines > provided in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (NSF 94-2). Single > copies of this brochure are available at no cost from the NSF Forms > and Publications Unit, phone (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail, > pubs@nsf.gov (Internet). Special care should be taken in adhering > to requirements of page limitations, font size and appendix > material. Proposals not adhering to the requirements of the GPG > will be returned without review. > > The proposal should contain the following sections: > > 1. GPG Item C1- Cover Sheet: > > Provide a cover sheet (form 1207) as described in the Grant > Proposal Guide (GPG). > > The title of the proposal should begin with the name of the > instrument (or category of instruments, in the case of a group of > related instruments), for example, "A confocal microscope for...." > Titles should include other key words that would be helpful for > assigning reviewers to the proposal and for indexing. Unnecessary > language, such as "Purchase of a ..." should not be included. Do > not specify any model name, number, or commercial designation. In > the box labeled "For consideration by NSF organizational unit," > insert "BIO/IID/MBE." Multidisciplinary proposals will be reviewed > jointly with other relevant NSF programs. > > Proposals should be submitted by a designated primary principal > investigator, who will sign the proposal cover sheet. Not more than > four additional co-principal investigators may be listed on the > cover sheet. There must be at least three major users of the > proposed instrumentation, whose work must be described in the body > of the proposal. Due to space limitations, no more than seven > major users may be listed. > > 2. GPG Item C2 (Proposal Section A)- Project Summary: > > Provide a summary, as specified in the GPG, of the type of > equipment to be purchased, the type of research for which the > instrument will be used, and the significance of the instrument for > that research. The summary should be understandable to a > scientifically literate reader. If an award is made, the project > summary may be made available to the public as a source of > information about the NSF award. > > > 3. GPG Item C3 (Proposal Section B)- Table of Contents: > > Provide a detailed Table of Contents, as specified in the GPG. > Please list the titles and corresponding page numbers of the > projects of each of the major users of the instrumentation at the > bottom of the Table of Contents page. If an animal welfare > statement is included in the proposal, it should be listed in the > Table of Contents. > > > 4. GPG Item C4 (Proposal Section C)- Project Description: > > Provide a description, as specified in the GPG, of the equipment to > be purchased and the research to be accomplished with the requested > equipment. Multi-User Biological Equipment proposals are > classified as Group Proposals as defined in the GPG. Because of > the high proposal volume in this program, Group Proposals submitted > to the Multi-User Biological Equipment Program may not include > project descriptions of over 25 pages. If a proposal is submitted > as a group proposal, the Group Proposal box on the cover sheet must > be checked. > > The Multi-User Biological Equipment Program will review the merit > of the research to be accomplished using the new equipment (to > judge if the projects are of high priority and if the requested > equipment is essential for them) as well as the appropriateness of > the items and configuration proposed. > > The first part of the project description section should describe > the instrumentation that is being requested. The second part > should describe the projects to be undertaken using the proposed > instrumentation. Thus the project description should include > adequate discussion of the points listed below. > > > For the instrumentation that is being proposed: > > > What equipment is being requested? If a specific manufacturer and > model has been selected, explain why. Clearly differentiate > between competing manufacturers and models, both in terms of > features and cost. If a specific item has not been selected in > advance, describe those instruments that are of interest, their > costs, and the methods that will be used to make the final > selection. The applicant should give a detailed breakdown of the > components of any complex instrument, including an itemized pr > ice list of the individual components. Actual projected costs > should be listed, not merely a nominal quote. Each component > should be clearly justified. It is appropriate to request multiple > pieces of equipment related by a common purpose, but a shopping > list of unrelated items is not advised. > > How will the continuing operation of the equipment be supported? > Indicate how the instrument will be supported and managed. > Identify the individual who will be responsible for the instrument > and describe a mechanism for assuring access to the instrument by > all investigators. Expertise in use of the instrument should be > documented. A commitment to financially support the continuing > operation and maintenance of the instrument is essential. > > Education and Human Resources: Include a statement specifying the > potential contribution of the proposed instrumentation to the > education and development of human resources in science and > engineering at the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral > levels. This statement may include, but is not limited to, the > role of the research in student training, course preparation, and > seminars. Special effectiveness or achievement in producing or > enabling professional scientists and engineers from > under-represented groups should be described. > > For each of the major users: > > Results from prior NSF support: For each major user of the proposed > instrumentation, list the results of their single most relevant > NSF-funded project, if any. > > What important research projects are proposed that will use the new > equipment? For each major user, provide a description of the > research projects to be pursued with the use of the proposed > instrumentation. Give adequate details of the experimental > procedure of the research project. The scientific descriptions > should demonstrate how the instrument, and any proposed ancillary > components of the instrument, are needed in the conduct of the > proposed research. In each description include literature > references to work in the research field (compile the references in > the bibliography section). Clearly delineate among major and minor > users. For minor users, only include a list of names, project > titles, current grant support, and a very brief (one paragraph) > summary of research related to the need for the instrument. > > How will the research described be affected by the new equipment? > The need for the requested new instrumentation (such as a > requirement for higher capacity, increased sensitivity, or new > capabilities), should be clearly detailed and closely connected > with the research projects that are given for each investigator. > Quantitative analysis of the potential impact of the requested > equipment on the productivity of each affected project is > encouraged. > > What is the likelihood of deriving benefits from the requested > equipment? It must be demonstrated that the proposed equipment is > appropriate for the applicant's particular samples or procedures. > Preliminary data should be presented when possible. Manufacturers' > applications laboratories, regional instrumentation facilities, and > colleagues are potential sources of assistance. > > How essential is the equipment? The applicant must differentiate > between an instrument that is essential versus one that is merely > more convenient for the proposed research. It is important to > document heavy usage of existing equipment or the cost of > alternative strategies for obtaining the needed information or > services. If the research has been conducted adequately without > the proposed instrument, it must be explain > ed what features are needed in the future and what aspect of the > research will be enhanced as a result of obtaining the proposed > instrumentation. (See also item 9, below.) > > > If the requested instrumentation would provide a service (e.g., DNA > synthesis) that is commonly available on a fee-for-service basis, > there must be careful justification for why commercial services are > inadequate for the scientific requirements of the pr > oposers. > > > > 5. GPG Item C5 (Proposal Section D)- Bibliography: > > Provide a bibliography as described in the GPG. > > > 6. GPG Item C6 (Proposal Section E)- Biographical sketches: > > Provide biographical sketches as specified in the GPG for the PI, > the co-PIs (no more than four), and the major users (no more than > seven). Provide an additional biographical sketch of the person > responsible for the operation and upkeep of the proposed i > nstrumentation if that person is not among the major users. > Biographical sketches should not exceed two pages per person. The > biographical sketches do not count against the project description > page limit. > > 7. GPG Item C7 (Proposal Section F)- Budget: > > Provide a budget as specified in the GPG. Assumption of 30-50% of > the total project cost by the grantee is required as an indication > of commitment to the proposed research. The amount of grantee > funding must be specified on the budget page at the time > of submission. Awards for equipment costing over $400,000 > typically require 50% grantee funding. The grantee funding may be > from any private or non-Federal public source and may be in cash or > in kind, fairly evaluated (see OMB Circular A-110, Attachment E). > Equipment items (such as accessories for a proposed new device) may > be included as part of the grantee funding contribution if they are > listed in the budget and are subject to the same peer review > criteria as the rest of the proposal. Manufacturers\rquote > discounts do not constitute grantee funding contributions. > > In general, the Multi-User Biological Equipment program will not > support requests for instruments that have been acquired, either on > loan or by partial payment, prior to the submission of the proposal > requesting support for the instrumentation. However, special > consideration may be given in some situations; for example, where > significant instrument time is needed to obtain convincing > preliminary results or to demonstrate the capabilities of the > instrument. > > When an instrument has been obtained on lease or loan prior to > submission of the NSF proposal, the following information must > be supplied as part of the budget justification: 1) documentation > to show that the instrument is not the property of the institution > and that the instrument will be at the institution for a total > period of no more than two years without payment in full > for the instrumentation; and 2) documentation to show that the > instrument has been at the institution for less than one year at > the time the first proposal requesting support from NSF was > submitted. The MBE Program may opt to offer support of the > depreciated value of the instrument rather than the original > purchase price. Proposers should only request support for the > specific instrumentation that is necessary for the research > projects that are justified in the proposal, without regard to the > specific configuration of the instrument currently at their > institution. > > 8. GPG Item C8 (Proposal Section G)- Current and Pending Support: > > Include a completed NSF Form 1239 for current and pending support > from all sources for each major user (not simply each co-PI). > > 9. GPG Item C9 (Proposal Section H)- Facilities, Equipment and > Other Resources: > > Provide a facilities statement as described in the GPG. In > addition, inventory instruments to which the applicants have or > might have access that are comparable to the equipment proposed and > provide reasons for their unavailability or unsuitability for > the proposed research. > > 10. GPG Item C10 (Proposal Section I)- Special Information and > Supplementary Documentation: > > Include necessary items as described in the GPG. Items typically > included in equipment proposals are documentation of collaborative > arrangements, environmental impact statements, and certifications > involving research with vertebrate animals and/or endangered > species. > > > PROPOSAL REVIEW > > Proposals will be reviewed in accordance with established > Foundation procedures and the four general criteria described in > the GPG: (1) research performance competence, (2) intrinsic merit > of the research, (3) utility or relevance of the research, and (4) > effect of the research on the infrastructure of science and > engineering. In addition, reviewers will also consider: (5) > adequacy of the users' current research grants to support these > studies and to utilize the instrument, (6) the degree to which the > instrument and ancillary components are appropriate and essential > for the research projects, (7) institutional commitment for > purchase and maintenance over the long term, and (8) > appropriateness of the research to the mission of the NSF. As a > part of the consideration of research competence (item 1 above), > the reviewers will judge the proposers ability to assure competent > use and maintenance of the equipment in addition to competence in > conducting the proposed research. As a part of the consideration > of the effect on infrastructure (item 4 above), the reviewers will > consider the number of investigators benefiting significantly from > the instrument and the potential extent of instrument usage. > > > INQUIRIES > > General inquiries should be made to the > > Multi-user Biological Equipment Program > Program Director, Room 615 > National Science Foundation > Arlington VA 22230 > > Telephone: 703-306-1472, E-mail: biriid@nsf.gov. > > > > INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH > > The program for INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH > provides support for > > - development of new instruments that extend currently > achievable sensitivity or resolution or provide new techniques > for detection, quantification, or observation of biological > phenomena; > > - determination of basic mechanisms of the interaction of > cells and molecules with specific device surfaces, with light, > with other forms of radiation, or such other conditions that > may be essential for the eventual development of a new device; > > - improved or novel software for the operation of instruments > or the analysis of data or images resulting from > computer-controlled instruments; and > > - workshops in emerging areas of instrumentation and > instrument development relevant to biological research in > areas supported by the Directorate for Biological Sciences. > > > There are no specific limits on the amount of funding that may be > requested. It is not required that the individual prototype > instruments to be developed under these awards have multiple users > (although the advances in instrumentation that result from these > awards must have future utility to a wide circle of potential users > in biological research). > > Proposals for the development of single items of equipment for > specific research projects will not be considered by the IDBR > program and should be directed to the appropriate NSF research > program. > > > DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION > > Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must be > received by the NSF no later than June 1 of each year. In case > delivery is delayed by causes out of the control of the > investigator, adequate evidence of meeting the deadline will be a > postmark of no later than May 25, or an overnight express delivery > invoice dated no later than May 31. Late proposals will be > returned without review. When an approved method of electronic > submission is available, proposals submitted electronically will be > dated when they enter the NSF system. > > Proposals will be considered by an Advisory Panel that usually > meets in September. Funding will not be available, in most cases, > before December of the same year. > > > CRITERIA FOR PROPOSALS TO THE INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM > > The Division of Biological Instrumentation and Resources supports > instrumentation activities to aid research efforts covered by the > NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences. The work to be done using > instrumentation provided under this program must fall within the > scope of the Directorate for Biological Sciences. > > > In general, instrumentation to be used in the conduct of > disease-oriented research, including the etiology, diagnosis or > treatment of physical or mental disease, abnormality or malfunction > in human beings or animals, or the design and testing of drugs fo > r treatment of such conditions is not appropriate for > consideration. Instrumentation involved with studies of basic > biological or biophysical processes will be appropriate for > consideration, whether or not the instrumentation has an eventual > application to disease-related studies. > > The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences has announced that it > will not review research proposals that are simultaneously being > reviewed by another Federal agency, such as the National Institutes > of Health or the Department of Energy. Generally, instrument > development proposals are subject to this policy. In some > circumstances involving very large development projects, proposals > may be simultaneously submitted to appropriate Federal agencies. > Contact the responsible program officer for information on joint > submissions. > > > PROPOSAL FORMAT > > Proposals submitted in response to this program announcement should > be prepared and submitted in accordance with the guidelines > provided in the NSF 8 Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). Single copies of > this brochure are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and > Publications Unit, phone (703-306-1472), or via e-mail to > pubs@nsf.gov (Internet). > > > 1. GPG Item C1- Cover Sheet: > > The title should be descriptive of the development activity to be > pursued. In the box labeled "For consideration by NSF > organizational unit," insert "BIO/IID/IDBR." > > > 2. GPG Item C2 (Proposal Section A)- Project Summary: > > Provide a summary, as specified in the GPG, of the instrumentation > development activity to be undertaken, the type of research for > which the instrument will be used (either by the PI or by the > future intended users), and the expected significance of the > instrument for that research. The summary should be understandable > to a scientifically literate reader. > > > 3. GPG Item C3 (Proposal Section B)- Table of Contents: > > Provide a detailed table of contents, as specified in the GPG. If > an animal welfare statement is included in the proposal, it should > be listed in the Table of Contents. > > 4. GPG Item C4 (Proposal Section C)- Project Description: > > Provide a description, as specified in the GPG, of the instrument > development activity to be pursued. This section may not exceed 15 > pages in length. The section should particularly cover the > following three points. > > Results from Prior NSF Support: Describe the results of the most > relevant NSF-supported project related to the development project > that is proposed, as specified in the GPG. > > Development Plan and Research Program: Describe the development > program to be undertaken and the research for which the proposed > instrument is intended, following the guidelines in the GPG. > Describe the design of the proposed instrument in sufficient detail > so that its feasibility can be assessed. Explain specifically why > no existing commercial equipment will adequately fill the role of > the proposed instrument. Explain the importance of the intended > biological research to be enhanced by the proposed instrument > development, and why the proposed instrument is essential for that > research. > > Education and Human Resources: Include a statement specifying the > potential contribution of the proposed research to the education > and development of human resources in science and engineering at > the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels. This > statement may include, but is not limited to, the role of the > research in student training, course preparation, and seminars. > Special effectiveness or achievement in producing or enabling > professional scientists and engineers from under-represented groups > should be described. > > 5. GPG Item C5 (Proposal Section D)- Bibliography: > > Provide a bibliography as specified in the GPG. > > 6. GPG Item C6 (Proposal Section E)- Biographical Sketches: > > Provide biographical sketches as specified in the GPG. > Biographical sketches should not exceed two pages per investigator. > > 7. GPG Item C7 (Proposal Section F)- Budget: > > Provide a budget as specified in the GPG. Among other items, funds > may be requested for personnel, shop costs and indirect costs. > > 8. GPG Item C8 (Proposal Section G)- Current and pending support: > > Include a completed NSF Form 1239 as specified in the GPG. > > 9. GPG Item C9 (Proposal Section H)- Facilities, Equipment and > Other Resources: > > Provide a facilities statement as described in the GPG. > > 10. GPG Item C10 (Proposal Section I)- Special Information and > Supplementary Documentation: > > Include necessary items as described in the GPG, such as > documentation of collaborative arrangements, environmental impact > statements, and certifications involving research with vertebrate > animals or endangered species. > > > PROPOSAL REVIEW > > Proposals will be reviewed in accordance with established > Foundation procedures and the four general criteria described in > the GPG: (1) research performance competence, (2) intrinsic merit > of the research, (3) utility or relevance of the research, and (4 > ) effect of the research on the infrastructure of science and > engineering. In addition, reviewers will also consider: (5) > adequacy of the users' current research grants to support their > biological research and to utilize the instrument, or (if the > developing group is different from the user group) the adequacy of > the developer's capacity to transfer the technology to commercial > development or to wider public research use, (6) the degree to > which the instrument and ancillary components are appropriate and > essential for the research projects, (7) the adequacy of the > mechanical and electronics shops or of subcontractors offering > equivalent services, as appropriate, and (8) appropriateness of the > research to the mission of the NSF. As part of the consideration > of the merit of the research (item 2 above), the reviewers will > examine the importance of both the instrumentation research and the > biological research for which the instrument is eventually i > ntended. As a part of the consideration of the effect on > infrastructure (item 4 above), the reviewers will consider the > number of investigators who will be expected to benefit > significantly from the instrument, and the value of the instrument > to the biological research community. > > > INQUIRIES > > General inquiries should be made to the > > Program for Instrument Development for Biological Research > Program Director, Room 615 > National Science Foundation > Arlington, VA 22230 > > Telephone: 703-306-1472, E-mail: biriid@nsf.gov. > > > EDUCATIONAL SUPPLEMENTS > > After an Instrument Development grant has been awarded, it is > eligible for supplementation for educational purposes. Specific > programs are available to support the participation of high school > students and undergraduate students in research activities. > Examples of such programs are the "Research Assistantships for > Minority High School Students" (announcement NSF 89-39) and > "Research Experiences for Undergraduates" (NSF 93-112). For > additional information on programs such as these, obtain the > appropriate program announcement or contact the appropriate program > officer. > > > SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS TO THE DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL > INSTRUMENTATION AND RESOURCES > > Fifteen copies of each proposal, as specified in Appendix A of the > GPG, including one copy bearing original signatures, should be sent > to the address specified under "Where to Submit" on p. 2 of the > GPG. > > Only one copy of NSF Form 1225, Information about Principal > Investigator/Project Director, should be sent, attached to the > original signed proposal. > > > GRANT ADMINISTRATION > > Grants awarded as a result of this announcement are administered in > accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC- 1, "Grant > General Conditions," or FDP-II, "Federal Demonstration Project > General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee > organization. Copies of these documents are available at no cost > from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit, phone (202) 357-7861, or > via e-mail (Internet: pubs@nsf.gov). More comprehensive > information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual, for sale > through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing > Office, Washington, DC 20402. > > > FINAL PROJECT REPORT > > Upon completion of the project a Final Project Report (NSF Form > 98A), including the Part IV Summary, will be required. Applicants > should review this form prior to proposal submission so that > appropriate tracking mechanisms are included in the proposal plan > to ensure that complete information will be available at the > conclusion of the project. > > > OTHER PROGRAMS OF INTEREST > > NSF Guide to Programs, available from the NSF Forms and > Publications Unit, briefly describes Foundation activities. > Proposers may also consult the GPG for additional guidance. > > > GENERAL INFORMATION > > > The National Science Foundation provides awards for research in the > sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for > the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for > publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume > responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. > > The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified > scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women, > minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any > of the research and research-related programs described in this > document. > > In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations and NSF > policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national > origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, > denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under an > y program or activity receiving financial assistance from the > National Science Foundation. > > The programs described in this publication are in the Category > 47.074, Biological Sciences, in the Catalog of Federal Domestic > Assistance. > > Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities > provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable > persons with disabilities to conduct research. See the program > announcement (NSF 91-54) or contact one of the program office > rs for the Division of Biological Instrumentation and Resources. > > NSF has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability which > enables individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with > the Division of Personnel Management for information relating to > NSF programs, employment, or general information, (703) 306-0090. > > PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENT > > The information requested on proposal forms is solicited under the > authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as > amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of > qualified proposals and may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and > staff assistants as part of the review process; to applicant > institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the > application review process, award decisions, or the administration > of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and > researchers as necessary to complete assigned work; and to other > government agencies in order to coordinate programs. See Systems > of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and > Associated Records," 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995), > and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 59 > Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of the > information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete > information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving > an award. > > Public reporting burden for this collection of information is > estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time > for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden e > stimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, > including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Herman G. > Fleming, Reports Clearance Officer, Contracts, Policy and > Oversight, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230 and/or > to Office of Management and Budget, OIRM - Paperwork Reduction > Project (3145-0058), Washington, DC 20503. > > ORDERING BY ELECTRONIC MAIL > > If you are a user of electronic mail and have access to Internet, > you may order publications electronically. Internet users should > send requests to pubs@nsf.gov. In your request, include the NSF > publication number and title, number of copies, your name, and a > complete mailing address. Publications mailed to U.S. addresses > should be received within three weeks after placement of your > order. > > OMB 3145-0058 > Keyword Codes: > P.T.:18 > K.W.: 1002004, 1002008, 1002034 > NSF 95-37 > (replaces NSF 92-126) > ------ end of nsf9537.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > From jgosz@turututu.unm.edu Mon Mar 6 16:15:03 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03228; Mon, 6 Mar 95 16:15:01 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15779; 6 Mar 95 16:14 EST Received: from turututu.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28443; Mon, 6 Mar 95 13:10:22 PST Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA29146; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 14:08:29 -0700 Message-Id: <9503062108.AA29146@turututu.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 6 Mar 95 14:08:28 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Basic Science Comm. hearings (NSF) Status: OR Author: tclancy at nsf3 Date: 3/3/95 12:29 PM Here is a summary of the Basic Research Subcommittee Hearing On Thursday, March 2, 1995, the Subcommittee on Basic Research (Chairman Schiff R-NM) of the House Science Committee held a hearing on the National Science Foundation's Budget Request for 1996. Members attending: Republicans: Schiff-NM, Chair; Boehlert-NY; Barton-TX; Ehlers-MI; Morella-MD; Weldon-FL; Hilleary-TN; Wamp-TN. Democrats: Geren-TX Ranking Minority Member; Doggett-TX; Luther-MN; Lofgren-CA; Doyle-PA; Jackson-Lee-TX. Witnesses Panel 1 Dr. Julian Wolpert, Princeton Univ. representing COSSA; Dr. Richard Herman, Univ. of Md, representing the Joint Policy Board of Mathematics; Dr. Roland Schmitt, Chariman of Amer. Inst. of Physics, representing the Exec. Comm., Council of Scientific Socielty of Presidents; and Mr. James Sawyer, representing Amer. Assoc. of Engineering Societies. Panel 2 Dr. Cornelius J. Pings, President of AAU also representing NASLGUC; Mr. Erich Bloch, Council on Competitiveness; Dr. Rita Colwell, President AAAS; and Dr. Pamela Ferguson, President, Grinnell College, representing Associated Colleges of the Midwest, Great Lakes Colleges Assoc. and Central Pennsylvannia Consortium. In his opening statement, Chairman Schiff stated that he supports the overall mission and direction of NSF but voiced concern over NSF's role in education, feeling that the levels of funding for education in the NSF budget. While he stated that he supports NSF involvement in science education he indicated that funding for EHR activities may be too high relative to the funding for research. Mr. Geren stated his concern that education was receiving a decrease in the budget and that funds for facilities were being rescinded. Other members voiced their support for the Foundation and the funding of basic research: Mr. Ehlers supported NSF funding for smaller academic institutions, stating that these institutions train a large percentage of the Nation's scientists. Mrs. Morella voiced her interest in the direction of the Foundation especially in the areas of encouraging more women in science and engineering. Mr. Boehlert stated his longstanding concern over the attention paid by colleges and universities to teaching. At the end of the hearing, Rep. Schiff stated that he was a supporter of science budgets and will fight for NSF in the budget process. General NSF Budget All witnesses were generally very supportive of the direction of NSF and the overall budget request given the tight budget times. Dr. Colwell (AAAS) did indicate that the level of overall federal support for S&T is declining and that the request for NSF is actually a decrease in constant dollars from last year's levels and a decrease in real dollars if the rescission of facilities funds is taken into account. "Strategic" v. "Curiosity-Driven" Research All the witnesses seemed to agree that it was not helpful to make a distinction between the two and that labels of "applied" or "basic" are often inaccurate and ill-defined when compared with the reality of the laboratory. As an example, Dr. Schmitt described his experiences as a researcher and as director of a large industrial lab where fundamental studies--spurred initially by practical, short-term concerns--spawned the field of modern surface chemistry by Dr. Irving Langmuir who later won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work. Erich Bloch also stated that narrow definitions of what is "applied" or "basic" or "pre-competitive" are not as important as insights and relationships. Witnesses also agreed that NSF is adopting the correct approach to highlight how federally-sponsored research is addressing societal needs. Facilities On facilities, there was some disagreement of NSF's role. Dr. Schmitt indicated that the facilities program should be supported and at higher levels than in the past. Dr. Ferguson--representing consortia of small colleges--also voiced support for the maximum authorized level for facilities, $250 million. Dr. Pings supported a mulit-agency plan and that he hoped that NSF's portion of such a program would grow to several hundred million dollars a year. Dr. Wolpert (COSSA) felt that facilities were important but that NSF's current approach to fund people over facilities is preferable. Dr. Colwell testified that funding for facilities was out of proportion to NSF's size relative to total federal R&D. Mr. Sawyer's opinion was that NSF should not be involved in facilities funding at all unless a comprehensive federal effort is undertaken. Congressman Vernon Ehlers--a physicist and former educator at Calvin College in Michigan--stated his opposition to facilities funding by NSF. Rep. Ehlers felt that a program was not needed since colleges and universities already receive funding for maintenance of research facilities through Indirect Cost reimbursement. Rep. Jackson-Lee of Texas also voiced her opposition to NSF funding of facilities. Mr. Ehlers also asked a question to the first panel about the replacement of some federal research grant programs by a process of allowing tax credits to industry for giving research grants to universities. The witnesses all agreed that it was a bad idea, stating that in theory it may sound good but in practice it would not work well at all. Balance between Education and Research The witnesses all endorsed NSF EHR programs and most favored the current NSF approach of slowing the growth of EHR programs in order to better evaluate their success. Erich Bloch stated that the levels of funding for research activities and education should be almost level. Dr. Herman (Joint Board of Mathematics) gave strong support to the NSF undergraduate programs. Congressman Boehlert asked about the recent 60 Minutes segment that criticized universities for emphasizing faculty research over teaching undergraduates. All witnesses testified that the piece was inaccurate and exaggerated the issue. Rep. Boehlert questioned this assumption saying that senior faculty seldom teach undergraduates at some universities and that some students go through undergraduate programs at major research universities without ever having a professor as a teacher. Value of SBE Research Congresswoman Lofgren asked about the increased need for research in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. She was interested in NSF's efforts to conduct research into the causes of violence asking about the proposed Violence Center. Chairman Schiff asked about the balance between NSF's funding of "hard" sciences as opposed to the social sciences. Noting that he was a political science major. Dr. Wolpert and Dr. Herman detailed many of the good things stemming from SBE research including the creating of the FCC auction using NSF-funded concepts on game theory, the violence center, human capital initiative and the work by political scientists to set up democratic government systems in Eastern Europe. From jgosz@turututu.unm.edu Mon Mar 6 16:48:31 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03377; Mon, 6 Mar 95 16:48:30 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26599; 6 Mar 95 16:48 EST Received: from turututu.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28947; Mon, 6 Mar 95 13:46:15 PST Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA29211; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 14:44:22 -0700 Message-Id: <9503062144.AA29211@turututu.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 6 Mar 95 14:44:21 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: tentative Coordinating Comm. meeting agenda Status: OR Agenda Coordinating Committee meeting April 20, 21, 1995 Sunset Beach Hotel Wednesday Evening, April 20 5:00 PM Social, Sunset Beach Hotel 7:00 PM LMER-LTER workshop (Hayden) other workshops, priority setting (Gosz) 8:00 PM Technology Committee Status (Bowser) Meta Access/Accession Project (Bledsoe) 8:30 PM continue social Thursday, April 21 8:30 AM NSF Report on LTER status (Allen) 9:00 AM Network Office and related activities (CC members) -LTER CC position on site submissions -criteria for Network Office competition -prioritization of Network Office work 10:30 AM break 10:45 AM Cont. Discussion of Network Office priorities 11:15 AM Data Managers Conference Report (Brunt) -recommendations -next workshop 11:45 AM Status of PI's online data sets, gopher, web (CC members) 12:15 lunch 1:15 PM Publications Committee report on Synthesis (Hayden) -recommendations 1:45 PM Assessment of 5 core areas discussion (Gross) 2:30 PM LTER affiliate criteria (Waide) 3:15 PM break 3:30 PM ILTER strategy -Magnitude of effort (Gosz) -affiliate criteria (Franklin, Waide) -Network Office Clearinghouse (Gosz, Vande Castle) -ILTER training, connectivity demos (Nottrott) 4:30 PM Site Bites (CC members) note: The discussion on the upcoming competition for the Network Office will be especially important. Sites should develop intrasite discussions before the CC meeting to allow the CC representatives to reflect the larger LTER community. The intrasite discussions should include priorities for the Network Office to better service the needs of sites, overall program as well as leadership areas to be developed by the Office. These priorities, along with NSF direction, will play a major role in the future Network Office functions. From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Mar 7 21:18:20 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02050; Tue, 7 Mar 95 21:18:19 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25124; 7 Mar 95 21:18 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02615; Tue, 7 Mar 95 18:18:55 PST Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 18:18:55 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: NBS Document Available: Endangered Ecosystems of the U.S. (fwd) To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The National Biological Service's Information Transfer Center announces the availability of "Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation." This is the first in a continuing series of NBS reports to be released electronically prior to publication in hardcopy. The report may be cited as follows: Noss, R., Scott M., and E.T. LaRoe. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. February 1995. National Biological Service. 58 pp. The document is in WordPerfect 5.1 format and is available with and without photographs, as follows: (1) To receive this document without photographs (400KB zipped to 150KB) from the Information Transfer Center's cc:Mail library server, send an email message to one of the following addresses: NBSITCLIB (for users of FWS cc:MAIL) NBSITCLIB at ~IFWS (for users of DOI cc:MAIL outside FWS) NBSITCLIB@mail.fws.gov (for users of Internet email) Type SEND ECOSYSTEM MS as the only entry on the subject line. Do not type information on the message line. It will not be read. For information about other documents on the NBS cc:Mail library server, send a message to the above address and type SEND HELP as the only entry on the subject line. Internet email users may need to decode the file with UUDECODE. Contact your systems administrator for assistance. (2) To retrieve a copy of this document with photographs (2.7MB) from an ftp server, access the following ftp site: ftp.its.nbs.gov (165.83.32.5) Log in as ftp or anonymous and go to /pub/nbs-series. The file is called ecosystem.manuscript. Make sure your ftp client is set to binary transfer mode. ---------------------------------- A limited number of printed copies of the document will be available after mid-April 1995. To obtain a copy, contact: USFWS Publications Unit 4401 North Fairfax Drive Mail Stop Code 130 WEBB Building Arlington, Virginia 22203 (703) 358-1711 FAX (703) 358-2314 From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Mar 8 12:45:41 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04216; Wed, 8 Mar 95 12:45:38 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16389; 8 Mar 95 12:45 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07011; Wed, 8 Mar 95 09:39:41 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04812; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 10:37:43 -0700 Message-Id: <9503081737.AA04812@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 10:37:42 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF representation at CC meeting Status: OR For your information: Both Mike Allen and Scott Collins will attend the CC meeting at VCR. Scott will be taking over the Long Term Projects program when Mike leaves NSF in September and will be involved in the all aspects of the Network Office competition. jim From jgosz@turututu.unm.edu Thu Mar 9 09:34:12 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07603; Thu, 9 Mar 95 09:34:10 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12329; 9 Mar 95 9:34 EST Received: from turututu.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13273; Thu, 9 Mar 95 06:31:52 PST Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01984; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 07:30:00 -0700 Message-Id: <9503091430.AA01984@turututu.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 9 Mar 95 07:29:59 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Budget comments by NSF Status: OR NSF Deputy Director Expresses Caution Over Future Budgets FYI No. 36, March 8, 1995 "Scary" and "exciting" were two words that NSF Deputy Director Anne C. Petersen used during a February 16 media discussion revolving around NSF's future budgets. Peterson is the National Science Foundation's Chief Operating Officer, a position which she has held since July 1994. Petersen's comments reflect the anxiety many in Washington are feeling as Congress starts work on the administration's over-all budget request. Both the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees with jurisdiction over the foundation's budget hold hearings on the FY 1996 NSF request during the next few days. Petersen acknowledges, as does her boss, Director Neal Lane, that these are "tight times." She stresses the importance of NSF funding being seen as an investment in the future, citing economic studies showing a return between 20-50% on general research funding. Federal spending for science and technology has given the country a "tremendous boost" she said. This investment message is aimed not only at Congress, but also the research community. "This is taxpayer money," Petersen declared, with NSF-sponsored research being for the "good of the country," and not as an entitlement for researchers. "The budget realities are very scary," Petersen said, when asked about NSF's likely future funding profile, saying that a balanced budget accompanied by tax cuts "will have a devastating impact" on over-all discretionary spending. When asked about the foundation's response to flat or lower future budgets, Petersen spoke of the "need to protect investment in the conduct of research," which is the traditional role of NSF. She noted that the foundation's support for education has evolved over time, saying that NSF's role could be debated. On the matter of the agency's funding of academic infrastructure, Petersen acknowledged that it "is a tough one for us" to decide about, citing the rescission of the FY 1995 modernization funding. Determining where future cuts should be made will be difficult, Petersen saying that the National Science Board is not "of one mind." While there have been discussions about NSF's priorities, no decisions have been made. Petersen does not foresee the NSF reorganizing along the lines of the National Institutes of Health. Petersen acknowledges that "we have a name recognition problem," which is all the more acute because of the large number of first and second term representatives. Concluding her remarks, she said there is a need for the research community to more actively promote the importance of NSF-sponsored research, supported by specific examples of how "this is an investment that pays off." ############### From sollinsp@ccmail.orst.edu Thu Mar 9 11:24:41 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08051; Thu, 9 Mar 95 11:24:39 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19023; 9 Mar 95 11:24 EST Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14096; Thu, 9 Mar 95 08:18:44 PST Received: from ccmail.orst.edu (ccmail-4.UCS.ORST.EDU [128.193.4.34]) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA19946; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 08:17:19 -0800 Received: from cc:Mail by ccmail.orst.edu id AA794765647; Thu, 09 Mar 95 08:15:13 PST Date: Thu, 09 Mar 95 08:15:13 PST From: Phillip Sollins Message-Id: <9502097947.AA794765647@ccmail.orst.edu> To: James Gosz , pi@lternet.edu Subject: Re: 800 number Status: OR Jim -- What is the annual cost of providing the 800 service? Thanks. -- Phil Sollins From jgosz@turututu.unm.edu Thu Mar 9 13:57:04 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08615; Thu, 9 Mar 95 13:57:02 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09560; 9 Mar 95 13:56 EST Received: from turututu.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15272; Thu, 9 Mar 95 10:50:08 PST Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02254; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 10:13:44 -0700 Message-Id: <9503091713.AA02254@turututu.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 9 Mar 95 10:13:43 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: commerce funding opportunity Status: OR > > The U. S. Department of Commerce has announced $65.0 million > in funds available to increase in the United States the use of > and access to the information superhighway. More details on > these Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure > Assistance Program (TIIAP) grants is available by request to > > tiiap@ntia.doc.gov > > Eligible applicants include school districts, libraries, community > groups, universities, state and local governments, public safety > providers, and non-profit organizations. > > About $38.0 million for demonstration projects. > About $16.0 million for access grants not to exceed $250,000 > About $10.0 million for planning projects. > > Demonstration projects are divided into two categories: > under $1.0 demonstrations and over $1.0 demonstrations. > > The domains government documents list as most pertinent include: > > SUBJECT CATEGORY GROUPS > 1. K-12 Education > 2. Higher Education > 3. Health/Human Services > 4. Statewide or Local Infrastructure Planning/Public Safety > 5. Community Networking/Library Services/ Arts and Culture > 6. Economic Development/Government and Public Information > > GENERAL GROUPS > 7. Rural Issues > 8. Region-Specific Coordination and Coalition-Building > > To assist applicants the NTIA staff is available at > 202 482-2048, (202 501-5136 - Fax), and regional > Workshops are planned as follows: > > 02-24 - Charleston, SC Marriott, 803 747-1900 > 02-28 - Omaha, NE Red Lion Hotel, 402 346-7600 > 03-02 - Richmond, VA Richmond Center, 804 783-7300 > 03-08 - Portland, OR Red Lion, 503 281-6111 > 03-11 - Albany, NY Omni, 518 462-6611 > 03-17 - Austin, TX Capital Marriott, 512 478-1111 > > Workshop information and registration are available from > Ms. Palmer at 202 482-2048, . The > Workshops will outline grant evaluation procedures, grant > guidelines, other similar federal grant programs, and will > include presentations by up to three previous TIIAP grantees > who will discuss their wining proposals. > > In addition to information from , > one can access data electronically as follows: > > To reach the Gopher server, point your Gopher client at > gopher.ntia.doc.gov and login as '. > > To reach the FTP server, FTP to ftp.ntia.doc.gov, login as > , use your e-mail address as the password, and > change to the /grantinfo director to find TIIAP files. > > To reach the WWW server, use http://www.ntia.doc.gov to > reach the NTIA Home Page, and follow the What's New link > to reach TIIAP information. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Mar 11 11:49:07 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14261; Sat, 11 Mar 95 11:49:06 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20220; 11 Mar 95 11:49 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28849; Sat, 11 Mar 95 08:37:03 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03447; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 09:35:12 -0700 Message-Id: <9503111635.AA03447@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sat, 11 Mar 95 09:35:12 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Commerce Dept. Budget hearings Status: OR Department of Commerce Encounters Tough Going in Congressional Hearings FYI No. 38, March 10, 1995 It quickly became clear during House and Senate hearings this week on the Department of Commerce that its budget request is going to be slashed. The extent to which this will affect the core programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology has yet to be seen, but it appears a near certainty that the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is going to come under heavy fire. One need look no further than the March 9 opening statement of House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-Ohio) who told Secretary Ronald Brown that Commerce is "a department that Republicans have in their cross hairs." While praising Brown for his overseas trade work, Kasich said that many of the department's programs were duplicated elsewhere in the federal government or private sector. He quickly turned to direct criticism of ATP, declaring "I don't like corporate welfare." Kasich presented a large chart entitled "What do these companies have in common?", which listed eight major high technology corporations, then answered, "Grants from the Department of Commerce." While the ATP was created during a Republican Administration, Kasich said, "they were dead wrong," declaring, "I'm going to go after" this. Secretary Brown defended ATP as a means of ensuring the "development of early-stage, precompetitive civilian technologies," adding in his prepared testimony that the program amounts to 0.5% of federal R&D funding. Until corporations start investing more heavily in R&D, Brown said, there is a need for ATP. Vice Committee Chairman Bob Walker (R-Pennsylvania) questioned if ATP was more important than the NIST core program, since a much larger percentage budget increase was requested. Brown said ATP was not more important, explaining its historical funding level was almost "zero." Walker was not satisfied with Brown's reply, later saying, "that's the real question, that's the real debate." On March 6, Chairman Phil Gramm (R-Texas) of the Senate Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee held a brief hearing on the department's FY 1996 budget request. His questions focused on programs such as ATP and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which he said were "aimed at moving the government into the development phase in partnership with the private sector." Secretary Brown responded that while the private sector must lead, "we in the government have to be better partners." He argued that "many things [at the precompetitive stage] would not be done by the private sector." Brown said he could make "a strong case" that such programs represented "one of the most important ways to leverage scarce government resources." Ranking Minority Member Ernest Hollings (D-South Carolina) spoke in support of the NIST programs, but Sen. Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) warned that in the current budget situation, "anybody who thinks this allocation [to the Commerce Department] wouldn't be reduced is dreaming." Within the next few weeks the outlines of Republican efforts to change the Commerce Department will become clearer. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kansas) recommended today the elimination of the departments of Commerce, Energy, Education, and HUD. Chairman Kasich made no attempt to conceal his intentions, with a witness at the Budget Committee hearing, Wayne Berman saying, "Chairman Kasich, you are as serious as a heart attack about reducing the deficit." A final note: In addition to the "Physics" and "Materials Science & Engineering" Laboratory Program budgets cited in FYI #27, we have been informed by a NIST official of related requested program budget increases. They are: "Technology Assistance: $3.0 million for Nanometrology and Development of Intrinsic Standards Under the Measurements and Standards for Emerging Instrumentation Industries initiative; "Chemical Science and Technology: $0.5 million for Measurements for Traceability under the Health Care initiative; "Building and Fire Research: $0.4 million for Automation in Construction under the Construction initiative; "Electronics and Electrical Engineering: $0.3 million for Lithography and Contamination Control under the Semiconductor initiative." NIST reports that the $0.6 million requested increase in the Physics Laboratory budget will cover inflation. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Mar 11 11:50:05 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14267; Sat, 11 Mar 95 11:50:04 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20305; 11 Mar 95 11:50 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28848; Sat, 11 Mar 95 08:36:06 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03440; Sat, 11 Mar 1995 09:34:14 -0700 Message-Id: <9503111634.AA03440@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sat, 11 Mar 95 09:34:14 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Basic Sci. Comm. hearings on NSF Status: OR House Basic Research Subcommittee Weighs NSF Budget Request FYI No. 37, March 10, 1995 The Basic Research Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, chaired by Steven Schiff (R-NM), began its work in the 104th Congress by holding two hearings on the National Science Foundation's fiscal year 1996 budget request. Schiff intends to draft reauthorization legislation for NSF soon, and plans a third hearing for March 21 on that issue. Previous NSF authorizing legislation, he noted, expired at the end of fiscal year 1993. Authorizing legislation approves programs and funding levels, but does not provide funding. Most members of the subcommittee were present on February 22 to hear NSF Director Neal Lane testify on the Foundation's budget request. Almost all members had words of praise for NSF and were pleased at the requested increase of 7.6% for Research and Related Activities. Robert Walker (R-PA), chairman of the full Science Committee, said, "NSF will find many Members on the majority side, and on the minority side, [Republican and Democratic] devoted to the mission of basic research that NSF so capably carries out," and Schiff added that "NSF has nothing but friends on this subcommittee." However, many members commented on the requested decrease for NSF's education programs and academic facilities funding. Lane was asked to discuss the balances NSF strikes between research and education, between research and facilities funding, and across the spectrum of basic through applied research, as well as the role of "strategic" research at NSF. The same questions were then asked of two panels of witnesses from academia and industry at the second hearing on March 2. Lane explained that the rationale for the "slight decline" in the request for education funding represented not "a sudden lack of interest or priority in our commitment to science and math education," but a "time for examination and evaluation" after rapid growth. While agreeing that "the need really is there" for a facilities renovation program, Lane said because NSF was "unable to fund so many proposals that rate so highly," it was felt that investigator-initiated research should be the top priority. He suggested that government and industry downsizing might create opportunities to use underutilized facilities. Lane acknowledged that "NSF is strongly shifted to the fundamental side" of the continuum of research, with "very little of what we do" classified as applied. But he stated that NSF did support fundamental research in "strategic" areas. NSF's strategic research was investigator-initiated and peer-reviewed, he said, but when possible the Foundation identified research as belonging to some strategic area "to help explain to the public what the research is for." Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) joked about "zeroing out" the Department of Education and giving its job to NSF; Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) questioned Lane about taking on some of the missions of the Department of Energy and its national labs, or heading a national "Department of Science." Lane responded that part of NSF's success is due to its relatively small size and independence. He added that "the science enterprise is so important to the future of this country" that "making large changes...should be approached very cautiously." Witnesses at the March 2 hearing generally supported Lane's testimony. Most agreed that it was reasonable to take time to evaluate the success of NSF's education programs, and that funding for facilities should not come at the expense of research. "It would be nice to fund facilities," said James Sawyer, representing the American Association of Engineering Societies, "but what NSF funds is people." He added that "it is easier for alumni to contribute to buildings than to research grants." Expressing concern that many institutions would become dependent on the federal government for facility repairs, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) said "a well-run university should take care of its facilities." There was consensus that distinctions between basic, strategic, and applied research were mostly meaningless. Roland Schmitt, Chairman of the American Institute of Physics Governing Board, and representing the Council of Scientific Society Presidents' Executive Committee, stated that "These goals - knowledge and discovery on one hand, usefulness and public good on the other - are not at loggerheads as they are too often portrayed." The witnesses agreed that the merit-based competitive process enabled NSF to fund the best and most promising research. When asked by Rep. William Luther (D-MN) whether a formal process was needed "to assure the best bang for the buck" in tight financial times, Association of American Universities President Cornelius Pings replied "we have that formalized process -- it's called NSF and NIH." Rita Colwell, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, affirmed that "among the science community, [NSF's process] is recognized as the most efficient dispersal of funding." ############### From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Mon Mar 13 09:30:04 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17394; Mon, 13 Mar 95 09:29:57 EST Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab16528; 13 Mar 95 9:30 EST Received: from [128.143.42.118] (jbh9bpc.evsc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17391; Mon, 13 Mar 95 09:29:35 EST Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 09:29:32 EST Message-Id: <9503131429.AA17391@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: act9q@virginia.edu, bdm8e@virginia.edu, bfc2m@virginia.edu, bfc2m@virginia.edu, bhc2f@virginia.edu, bibrinso@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu, BICHRIST@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu, bph@virginia.edu, brs3v@virginia.edu, btruitt@vcrlter.evsc.virginia.edu, cmh3s@virginia.edu, crc7m@virginia.edu, crt2u@virginia.edu, daw100f@oduvm.cc.odu.edu, des3e@virginia.edu, dlr2n@virginia.edu, dlr2n@virginia.edu, dok2p@virginia.edu, dto9e@virginia.edu, dwr5p@virginia.edu, dyoung@cabell.vcu.edu, dyozzo@back.vims.edu, eah4q@virginia.edu, erwinm@mail.fws.gov, fct8g@virginia.edu, fishnwlf@cc.usu.edu, fpd100u@oduvm.cc.odu.edu, gfo100f@ludwick.naeco.odu.edu, gs6t@virginia.edu, heq2d@virginia.edu, hhs@virginia.edu, iris@vims.edu, jcallahan@lternet.edu, jcz@virginia.edu, jda4g@virginia.edu, jes5z@virginia.edu, jhp7e@virginia.edu, jjt2e@virginia.edu, jng@virginia.edu, jpw3e@virginia.edu, jrs4u@virginia.edu, jtw7w@virginia.edu, kac4k@virginia.edu, kochel@bucknell.edu, kww7c@virginia.edu, lam8s@virginia.edu, lbr4c@virginia.edu, lkb2e@virginia.edu, mjg4a@virginia.edu, pw3c@virginia.edu, rjt9c@virginia.edu, rlt7a@virginia.edu, sam8f@virginia.edu, slh3z@virginia.edu, smc2n@virginia.edu, tc5e@virginia.edu, thf5w@virginia.edu, tjw2w@virginia.edu, tthompson@vcrlter.evsc.virginia.edu, UGPTOLLE@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu, wck@darwin.clas.virginia.edu, moncrief@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU, BITAYLOR@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu, bio2kst@cabell.vcu.edu, bio4daj@cabell.vcu.edu From: Bruce Hayden Subject: Issue #12 Status: OR **************************** * * * THE ODUM SOCIETY * * * **************************** Issue 12 13 Mar. 1995 ______________ The Odum Society consists of VCR LTER students, student advisors and friends. Bill Odum was perhaps the archtype "mother hen" morph of academic advisors. He invested in his students in every way. This VCR LTER newsletter for our students is dedicated to Bill. As PI I will take the lead in publishing the notes of The Odum Society from time to time. I will include items of interest that I harvest from my e-mail and items sent along from other LTER sites. That way I don't have to think up all this myself! Contributions from students and PIs welcome. JOBS, JOBS, JOBS & JOBS *********************** U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE DENVER, COLORADO ANNOUNCEMENT NO.95-0015958 OPENING DATE: 02-27-95 CLOSING DATE: 03-17-95 THIS IS A TERM APPOINTMENT NOT TO EXCEED 13 MONTHS THAT MAY BE EXTENDED UP TO FOUR YEARS POSITION, SERIES, GRADE: Ecologist, GS-408-9 SALARY: $29,405 per annum LOCATION: National Biological Service, Northern Prairie Science Center, Jamestown, N.D. Duty Station: Springfield, MO. WHO CAN APPLY: All citizens of the United States. No Federal Service experience is required. DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES: Develops, maintains and modifies database systems for long-term archiving, integration, and retrieval of data sets produced by the Prairie Cluster LTEM Program and supporting cooperators. A wide range of data types are involved, including physical, chemical, and biological data related to meteorology, soils, vegetation, fauna, hydrology, geology, land use, and limnology. Ensures that documentation of these data sets is maintained and provided with the data, and the documentation is complete with respect to instrumentation, sampling design, sampling methods, data summary and analysis and the accuracy, precision and completeness of the resulting data sets. Provide statistical support for the Prairie Cluster LTEM program concerning experimental design and analysis, data collection procedures and guidelines. Performs statistical analysis on databases and assists with interpretation of results. Work with Prairie Cluster LTEM staff in retrieval of data from outside sources and sending of data to cooperators. Establishes protocols for the documentation and transfer of data. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: Basic requirements: degree in biology, or a related field of science underlying ecological research that included at least 30 semester hours in basic and applied biological sciences. These hours must have included at least 9 semester hours in ecology, and 12 hours in physical and mathematical sciences. AND SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE: In addition to meeting the basic requirements as outlined above, all applicants must also demonstrate at least one year of appropriate professional experience which demonstrates the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the duties of this position, and which was comparable in level of difficulty and responsibility to the GS-7 level in the Federal Service. SUBSTITUTIONS OF EDUCATION FOR SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE: Completion of all requirements for a masters degree; or two full academic years of graduate education directly related to the position. (18 semester hours or 27 quarter hours is considered to be equal to 1 full year of graduate education). RANKING FACTORS: Applicants will be evaluated on the extent to which they possess the rating factors listed below. 1. Knowledge of database management (including database design, data input procedures, and quality assurance protocols), and associated software (software specifically used for database management, data summary and analysis of scientific data). 2. Knowledge of basic ecological principals and processes and the procedures, techniques, and methods required to determine ecological relationships. 3. Knowledge of statistical methods and techniques which are used for the summary and analysis of scientific data. 4. Knowledge of IBM-compatible micro-computer systems which include basis operation of equipment, installation of programs, and basic upkeep of equipment. This knowledge includes an understanding of MS-DOS, CPUs, monitors, printers, modems, and other peripheral devices. 5. Ability to communicate orally and in writing. HOW TO APPLY: Submit an Optional Application for Federal employment (OF 612), Standard Form 171, or resume that includes the announcement number, title, and grade of the job for which you are applying. Personal information should include full name, mailing address with zip code, and day and evening phone numbers with area codes, social security number, country of citizenship and veterans preference. Please submit a college transcript or complete a List of College courses and Certificate of Scholastic Achievement (OPM Form 1170/17). If you are claiming 5-point veterans preference, submit a copy of military discharge (DD-214). If you are claiming 10-point veterans preference, submit a Standard Form 15 and the required proof of entitlement. COMPLETION OF THE ATTACHED DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, APPLICANT BACKGROUND SURVEY IS VOLUNTARY AND IS USED ONLY TO ASSESS OUR AGENCIES' EFFECTIVENESS IN THE FEDERAL EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM AND TO ENSURE THAT OUR AGENCIES' PERSONNEL PRACTICES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL LAW. POSTMARK: Applications must be postmarked no later than the closing date of this notice. SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO: National Biological Service Post Office Box 25486 Denver, Colorado 80225 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CALL: National Biological Service, Division of Personnel at (303) 236-4733. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER: All candidates will receive consideration without regard to race, color, creed, sex, politics, religion, age or other non-merit factors. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROGRAM AND AREA INFORMATION: GREAT PLAINS PRAIRIE CLUSTER LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SERVICE AND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GENERAL PROGRAM OVERVIEW: In 1992, the National Park Service (NPS) began developing prototype inventory and monitoring programs within each of ten biogeographic associations. The prototype programs are charged with designing, testing and implementing long-term ecological monitoring to support park planning and management. The aim of the prototype program is to develop protocols that are applicable to other NPS sites, as well as public and private reserves within each of the biogeographic associations. During the first years of the new programs, the National Biological Service (NBS) will take the lead in developing and testing monitoring protocols. NBS and NPS will establish partnerships with academic institutions, other agencies, and private groups to ensure scientific credibility and long-term consistency within each monitoring program. The four existing prototype programs are Channel Islands National Park, Denali National Preserve, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and Shenandoah National Park. GREAT PLAINS PRAIRIE CLUSTER: This year a cluster of six Great Plains parks was chosen as the fifth prototype monitoring program, and will represent the Prairie and Grassland Association. This program differs from the other prototypes in two respects. First, rather than a single large park, the program will include six parks that are geographically dispersed from western Nebraska to eastern Iowa, and from southern Minnesota to southwestern Missouri. Secondly, the parks included are small, primarily historic parks. These parks contain high quality to degraded prairie and savanna remnants with a range of management histories. The monitoring program emphasizes three high priority issues: 1) external threats including urban encroachment and water quality issues; 2) prairie, glade and savanna restoration and management; and 3) biodiversity issues including endangered species management. In order to integrate monitoring results into managerial decision-making, an organizational support structure and data management system will be developed. Monitoring results will be distributed to a wide range of audiences, including all prairie parks in the Great Plains. CLUSTER PARKS: Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa; Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, Missouri; Pipestone National Monument, Minnesota; Homestead National Monument, Nebraska; Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, Nebraska; Scotts Bluff National Monument, Nebraska. AREA INFORMATION: The NPS Prairie Cluster LTEM Program Office is located at Wilson's Creek National Battlefield in southwestern Missouri, about 3 miles from Republic (pop. 6,000) and 10 miles from Springfield (pop. 150,000). The area enjoys a moderate climate with extreme highs in summer of 100 degrees, and lows in winter of -5 degrees. Humidity is high all year. Services in Republic include doctor, dentist, churches, hardware, drug, and grocery stores, as well as elementary and high schools. Major shopping centers, hospitals, and 4-year colleges and universities are located in Springfield. Property is available for rent or purchase at a wide range of prices in surrounding small towns and Springfield. GOOD GRACES *********** House Basic Research Subcommittee Weighs NSF Budget Request FYI No. 37, March 10, 1995 The Basic Research Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, chaired by Steven Schiff (R-NM), began its work in the 104th Congress by holding two hearings on the National Science Foundation's fiscal year 1996 budget request. Schiff intends to draft reauthorization legislation for NSF soon, and plans a third hearing for March 21 on that issue. Previous NSF authorizing legislation, he noted, expired at the end of fiscal year 1993. Authorizing legislation approves programs and funding levels, but does not provide funding. Most members of the subcommittee were present on February 22 to hear NSF Director Neal Lane testify on the Foundation's budget request. Almost all members had words of praise for NSF and were pleased at the requested increase of 7.6% for Research and Related Activities. Robert Walker (R-PA), chairman of the full Science Committee, said, "NSF will find many Members on the majority side, and on the minority side, [Republican and Democratic] devoted to the mission of basic research that NSF so capably carries out," and Schiff added that "NSF has nothing but friends on this subcommittee." However, many members commented on the requested decrease for NSF's education programs and academic facilities funding. Lane was asked to discuss the balances NSF strikes between research and education, between research and facilities funding, and across the spectrum of basic through applied research, as well as the role of "strategic" research at NSF. The same questions were then asked of two panels of witnesses from academia and industry at the second hearing on March 2. Lane explained that the rationale for the "slight decline" in the request for education funding represented not "a sudden lack of interest or priority in our commitment to science and math education," but a "time for examination and evaluation" after rapid growth. While agreeing that "the need really is there" for a facilities renovation program, Lane said because NSF was "unable to fund so many proposals that rate so highly," it was felt that investigator-initiated research should be the top priority. He suggested that government and industry downsizing might create opportunities to use underutilized facilities. Lane acknowledged that "NSF is strongly shifted to the fundamental side" of the continuum of research, with "very little of what we do" classified as applied. But he stated that NSF did support fundamental research in "strategic" areas. NSF's strategic research was investigator-initiated and peer-reviewed, he said, but when possible the Foundation identified research as belonging to some strategic area "to help explain to the public what the research is for." Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) joked about "zeroing out" the Department of Education and giving its job to NSF; Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) questioned Lane about taking on some of the missions of the Department of Energy and its national labs, or heading a national "Department of Science." Lane responded that part of NSF's success is due to its relatively small size and independence. He added that "the science enterprise is so important to the future of this country" that "making large changes...should be approached very cautiously." Witnesses at the March 2 hearing generally supported Lane's testimony. Most agreed that it was reasonable to take time to evaluate the success of NSF's education programs, and that funding for facilities should not come at the expense of research. "It would be nice to fund facilities," said James Sawyer, representing the American Association of Engineering Societies, "but what NSF funds is people." He added that "it is easier for alumni to contribute to buildings than to research grants." Expressing concern that many institutions would become dependent on the federal government for facility repairs, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) said "a well-run university should take care of its facilities." There was consensus that distinctions between basic, strategic, and applied research were mostly meaningless. Roland Schmitt, Chairman of the American Institute of Physics Governing Board, and representing the Council of Scientific Society Presidents' Executive Committee, stated that "These goals - knowledge and discovery on one hand, usefulness and public good on the other - are not at loggerheads as they are too often portrayed." The witnesses agreed that the merit-based competitive process enabled NSF to fund the best and most promising research. When asked by Rep. William Luther (D-MN) whether a formal process was needed "to assure the best bang for the buck" in tight financial times, Association of American Universities President Cornelius Pings replied "we have that formalized process -- it's called NSF and NIH." Rita Colwell, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, affirmed that "among the science community, [NSF's process] is recognized as the most efficient dispersal of funding." BEING OUT OF FAVOR -- NOT FUN ***************************** Department of Commerce Encounters Tough Going in Congressional Hearings FYI No. 38, March 10, 1995 It quickly became clear during House and Senate hearings this week on the Department of Commerce that its budget request is going to be slashed. The extent to which this will affect the core programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology has yet to be seen, but it appears a near certainty that the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is going to come under heavy fire. One need look no further than the March 9 opening statement of House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-Ohio) who told Secretary Ronald Brown that Commerce is "a department that Republicans have in their cross hairs." While praising Brown for his overseas trade work, Kasich said that many of the department's programs were duplicated elsewhere in the federal government or private sector. He quickly turned to direct criticism of ATP, declaring "I don't like corporate welfare." Kasich presented a large chart entitled "What do these companies have in common?", which listed eight major high technology corporations, then answered, "Grants from the Department of Commerce." While the ATP was created during a Republican Administration, Kasich said, "they were dead wrong," declaring, "I'm going to go after" this. Secretary Brown defended ATP as a means of ensuring the "development of early-stage, precompetitive civilian technologies," adding in his prepared testimony that the program amounts to 0.5% of federal R&D funding. Until corporations start investing more heavily in R&D, Brown said, there is a need for ATP. Vice Committee Chairman Bob Walker (R-Pennsylvania) questioned if ATP was more important than the NIST core program, since a much larger percentage budget increase was requested. Brown said ATP was not more important, explaining its historical funding level was almost "zero." Walker was not satisfied with Brown's reply, later saying, "that's the real question, that's the real debate." On March 6, Chairman Phil Gramm (R-Texas) of the Senate Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee held a brief hearing on the department's FY 1996 budget request. His questions focused on programs such as ATP and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which he said were "aimed at moving the government into the development phase in partnership with the private sector." Secretary Brown responded that while the private sector must lead, "we in the government have to be better partners." He argued that "many things [at the precompetitive stage] would not be done by the private sector." Brown said he could make "a strong case" that such programs represented "one of the most important ways to leverage scarce government resources." Ranking Minority Member Ernest Hollings (D-South Carolina) spoke in support of the NIST programs, but Sen. Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) warned that in the current budget situation, "anybody who thinks this allocation [to the Commerce Department] wouldn't be reduced is dreaming." Within the next few weeks the outlines of Republican efforts to change the Commerce Department will become clearer. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kansas) recommended today the elimination of the departments of Commerce, Energy, Education, and HUD. Chairman Kasich made no attempt to conceal his intentions, with a witness at the Budget Committee hearing, Wayne Berman saying, "Chairman Kasich, you are as serious as a heart attack about reducing the deficit." A final note: In addition to the "Physics" and "Materials Science & Engineering" Laboratory Program budgets cited in FYI #27, we have been informed by a NIST official of related requested program budget increases. They are: "Technology Assistance: $3.0 million for Nanometrology and Development of Intrinsic Standards Under the Measurements and Standards for Emerging Instrumentation Industries initiative; "Chemical Science and Technology: $0.5 million for Measurements for Traceability under the Health Care initiative; "Building and Fire Research: $0.4 million for Automation in Construction under the Construction initiative; "Electronics and Electrical Engineering: $0.3 million for Lithography and Contamination Control under the Semiconductor initiative." NIST reports that the $0.6 million requested increase in the Physics Laboratory budget will cover inflation. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Mar 13 11:46:23 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17731; Mon, 13 Mar 95 11:46:19 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa18970; 13 Mar 95 11:46 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06470; Mon, 13 Mar 95 08:43:42 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA14100; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 09:41:50 -0700 Message-Id: <9503131641.AA14100@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 09:41:49 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: chinese research Status: OR Could any of you that interact with Chinese sites/scientists let Galloway know of your work. > From galloway@lupine.mbl.edu Mon Mar 13 09:37:18 1995 > Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) > id AA06108; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 09:37:06 -0700 > Received: from [128.128.173.102] (ECOMAC2.MBL.EDU [128.128.173.102]) by hoh.mbl.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA05657; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:40:56 -0500 > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:40:56 -0500 > Message-Id: <199503131640.LAA05657@hoh.mbl.edu> > X-Sender: galloway@hoh.mbl.edu > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > To: jgosz@turututu.unm.edu > From: galloway@lupine.mbl.edu (James N. Galloway) > Subject: China, CERN and LTER > Cc: china@nas.edu > > Hi Jim, for the past few years I have been working on global change > research issues in China. Currently I and others are submitting a rash of > proposals to investigate nitrogen dynamics at three different scales in the > United States and China. > > >From my past efforts, I know that there has been some interaction between > LTER sites and the Chinese equivalent (CERN). I am hoping that you know > which LTER sites/PIs have been the most involved with their Chinese > counterparts. If you do not know, perhaps you could direct to someone else > who knows more than you (I know this is probably impossible, but you never > know!). > > Cheers, Jim > > James N. Galloway > Visiting Scientist (through mid-June 1995) > The Ecosystems Center > Marine Biological Laboratory > Woods Hole MA 02543 > USA > > 508-540-8316 (p) > 508-457-1548 (f) > > > From csbledsoe@ucdavis.edu Tue Mar 14 19:04:41 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA22342; Tue, 14 Mar 95 19:04:40 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20089; 14 Mar 95 19:04 EST Received: from rocky.ucdavis.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20823; Tue, 14 Mar 95 16:03:45 PST Received: by rocky.ucdavis.edu (8.6.11/UCD3.4) id QAA01566; Tue, 14 Mar 1995 16:01:56 -0800 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 16:01:55 -0800 (PST) From: Caroline Bledsoe X-Sender: fzbledso@rocky To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: LTER Lecture Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I just gave an overview of LTER lecture to about 40 incoming first year ecology grad students here at UCD....they were quite interested in the disturbance events at the sites, and asked lots of questions about which experiments/long term datasets were particularly valuable. Caroline From mallen@nsf.gov Wed Mar 15 13:53:27 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25226; Wed, 15 Mar 95 13:53:25 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17388; 15 Mar 95 13:53 EST Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26217; Wed, 15 Mar 95 10:47:35 PST Received: from [128.150.59.38] (c4m28.cise.nsf.gov) by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA18360 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:46:10 -0500 X-Sender: mallen@popsrvr.nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:45:45 -0500 To: pi@lternet.edu From: Mike Allen Subject: NSF FY 1995 Environment and Global Change research opportuni Status: OR >Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 13:21:12 EST >From: jroskosk@nsf.gov >To: debpo@nsf.gov >Subject: NSF FY 1995 Environment and Global Change research opportuni > > The following documents are available either on-line or from the >publications office at the National Science Foundation. This list >includes FY 1995 announcements of funding opportunities related to NSF >Environment and Global Change research programs. Details on how to >retrieve the documents are at the end of this message. If you have >any questions about these programs please contact Leila Harris at >(703) 306-0891 or Internet . > > > > >NSF 94-166 - HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL CHANGE- Announcement of >Special Funding Opportunities Related to the NSF Global Change >Research Program > >Including (I) general research on HDGC (deadlines vary by discipline) >(II) Policy Sciences for HDGC (deadline past for FY 1995) and (III) >Consortium for Research Centers and Research Teams (deadline past for >FY 1995) >STIS Filename: nsf94166.txt > >(NSF 95-29) is the addendum to NSF 94-166 which describes special >opportunities related to international opportunities for HDGC research >centers and teams. > >NSF 95-9- METHODS AND MODELS FOR INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT - Announcement >of Special Funding Opportunity. Deadline for Funding Opportunity I - >` Research to Integrated Multiple Components - April 17, 1995. >Deadlines for Funding Opportunity II- `Enhancement of Scientific >Components' vary by discipline. >STIS Filename: nsf959.txt > >NSF 95-39 - BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS Deadlines and >contacts for research funded by the directorate for biological >sciences. >STIS Filename: nsf9539.txt > >NSF 95-44- NSF NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING >RESEARCH- An Opportunity in the Environment and Global Change Research >Initiative. Deadline May 1, 1995. >STIS Filename: nsf9544.txt > >NSF 95-45- 1995-1996 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION GLOBAL CHANGE >RESEARCH PROGRAM FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES - A COMPONENT OF THE U.S. >GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM. Compendium of announcements of >funding opportunity related to the NSF Global Change Research Program. > Deadlines vary by program. >STIS Filename: nsf9545.txt > >NSF 95-46 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE (TECO). Interagency >global change research opportunity in FY 1995. Deadline- April 17, >1995. >STIS Filename: nsf9546.txt > >NSF 95-48 INTERAGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY - NSF/EPA >PARTNERSHIP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH. Opportunities for funding in >(I) Water and Watersheds, (II) Technology for a Sustainable >Environment, and (III) Valuation and Environmental Policy. Closing >date May 1, 1995. >STIS Filename: nsf9548.txt > >NSF 95-49 -- ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMISTRY AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY >Research at the Interfaces of Geochemistry, Hydrology, Coastal >Sciences, Chemistry, Microbial and Molecular Biology, Colloid and >Transport Engineering, and Mathematics. >STIS Filename: nsf9549.txt > > > >How to obtain documents: > > > > >On-Line STIS: > >Internet At the login prompt enter 'public' >If you are dialing in with a modem: choose 1200, 2400, or 9600 baud, >7-E-1. Dial (703) 306-0213. When connected press 'enter'. at the >login prompt, enter 'public'. > >Documents via E-mail: > >Send a message to "stisserv@nsf.gov". Use the "STIS Filename" shown >above in the "get" command. For example, to retrieve nsf94166.txt, >the text of your message should be as follows: > >get nsf94166.txt > >To have a copy of the document mailed to you, send message identifying >nsf publication number to: > >Internet > > >For additional assistance contact: >email: stis@nsf.gov >Phone: (703) 306-0214 >TDD: (703) 306-0090 > From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Mar 22 13:36:14 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03837; Wed, 22 Mar 95 13:36:12 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26906; 22 Mar 95 13:36 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00893; Wed, 22 Mar 95 10:31:08 PST Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 10:31:08 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin Subject: National Park Service Ecosystem Management Report On-line To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This posting, which may be of interest to LTER, appeared on the listserver BENE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The National Park Service (NPS) has completed a working draft on the application of the ecosystem management (EM) concept to managment of units of the National Park System. The working draft excedes the limits of BENE, but users interested in receiving a copy may request one from Bob_Spude@nps.gov. This is an agency-sanctioned posting intended solely for the purpose of generating valuable dialog via the Internet. This posting is not intended to satisfy any current or future public notice or review processes which may, or may not, be required by law or policy. Altthough the NPS is not, through this process, formally soliciting comments from reviewers, the NPS will be interested in learning of any new ideas that review of this working draft generates. Resulting Internet dialog will be monitored informally by Peggy Lipson and Bob Spude, Office of Ecosystem and Strategic Managament, Rocky Mountain Region. The NPS is in no way obligated to accept, respond to, or even monitor any and all dialog that may be generated. HOWEVER, the NPS encourages and appreciates any dialog intended to improve the implementation of EM principles to National Parks. Thanks to Bob McIntosh, John Dennis, and the NPS Ecosystem Management Working Group for making the report available in this unfinished form. Thanks also to Dan Huff of FWS for asistance and comments. This may be the first Internet posting for a working document of the National Park Service. Hopefully, it won't be the last! From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Mar 22 19:23:48 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05097; Wed, 22 Mar 95 19:23:47 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09891; 22 Mar 95 19:23 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05599; Wed, 22 Mar 95 16:22:41 PST Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:22:41 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Re: NSTC panel report reference? (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Several of you have inquired about the draft NSTC panel report referred to in the February 24 Science item (pg 1083), "Top Panel Calls for More Ecology Sites." I've finally located it. See the access information below. Through WWW brosers like Mosaic or Netscape: ftp://keck.tamu.edu/pub/bene/bene_texts/SBED_Plan.txt Via FTP, access keck.tamu.edu and go to the /pub/bene/bene_texts directory. Another option is to go to the BENE document archive at URL: http://straylight.tamu.edu/bene/home/bene.docs.html and click on the SBED link From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Mar 27 11:35:22 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03670; Mon, 27 Mar 95 11:35:20 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10522; 27 Mar 95 11:35 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07380; Mon, 27 Mar 95 08:31:27 PST Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 08:31:27 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Subject: How to Effectively Reach Congress (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This message was posted to Ecolog-L by the public affairs office of the Ecological Society of America. It contains information that might prove beneficial. Excuse the cross-post. If you've seen it already, hit the delete key now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 14:21:00 EST From: esahq@esa.org Subject: Reaching Congress Memo to: Ecolog-l Subscribers From: Public Affairs Office, Ecological Society of America Subject: Reaching Congress The 104th Congress is moving quickly on many fronts, including legislation affecting endangered species, forest management, and wetlands, just to name a few. While the Ecological Society of America is working to respond to many of these issues through such venues as ESA ad hoc committee reports, and letters of support, the effectiveness ESA can have in conveying information to legislators pales in comparison to the ability of individual ESA members (= constituents and voters) to provide their representatives with important information. Congressional staff pay far more attention to individual constituents than they do other sources of information. According to data from Burson- Marsteller/Washington, an average 75% of offices say they pay a "great deal" of attention to constituents while only 23% of offices say they pay a "great deal" of attention to interest groups. According to a recent article produced by the American Society of Association Executives, letters from constituents are a main source of information congressional staff use to develop opinions and learn about issues important to their electorate. A survey of 170 congressional offices undertaken by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in Washington, DC showed that an average of 59% of senior staff officials pay a "great deal" or "quite a bit" of attention to spontaneous mail. The more obvious the effort taken in writing the letter (i.e. not a form letter) the more attention it will garner. In contrast, only an average of 8% of congressional offices pay a great deal of attention to position papers produced by organizations. Another effective mechanism to reach both legislators and the public is through the media. Letters to the editor, opinion or op-ed columns, and editorials to local papers capture the attention of congressional offices who spend a fair amount of time paying attention to news from their respective home states. Tips on writing your representative include: Keep it concise; a one-page letter is best, two pages maximum. State purpose of letter up front and focus on one subject area. Back your position up with the remainder of your letter. If the subject is a specific piece of legislation, cite it by name and bill number. Note likely ramifications of legislation and, if possible, suggest a better approach. It is easier for congressional offices to respond to letters that address specific legislation. They may not know what to do with general "information" on a topic not tied to legislation. Ask for legislator's views. Suggested address style is: The Honorable_______________________ United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator_______________________ The Honorable______________________ United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative_________________ President William J. Clinton 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20500 Vice President Albert Gore Old Executive Office Building Washington, DC 20501 Following is a listing of several key committees with members listed in order of seniority. Should you send a letter or write a letter to the editor, staff at ESA's Public Affairs Office would be interested in receiving a copy. Please mail, fax, or e-mail to: Ecological Society of America Public Affairs Office 2010 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 fax: 202/833-8775 e-mail: esahq@esa.org If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. ================================================================= Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee: Republicans: Larry Pressler (SD), Chair; Bob Packwood (OR); Ted Stevens (AK); John McCain (AZ); Conrad Burns (MT) ; Slade Gorton (WA) ; Trent Lott (MS) ; Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX); Olympia Snowe (ME); John Ashcroft (MO) ; Democrats: ; Ernest Hollings (SC); Daniel Inouye (HI); Wendell Ford (KY); James Exon (NE); John Rockefeller (WV); John Kerry (MA); John Breaux (LA); Richard Bryan (NV); Byron Dorgan (ND) House Commerce Committee: Republicans: Thomas Bliley (VA), Chair; Carlos Moorhead (CA); Jack Fields (TX); Mike Oxley (OH); Mike Bilirakis (FL); Dan Schaeffer (CO); Joe Barton (TX); Dennis Hastert (IL); Fred Upton (MI); Cliff Stearns (FL); Bill Paxon (NY); Paul Gillmore (OH); Scott Klug (WI); Gary Franks (CT); Jim Greenwood (PA); Michael Crapo (ID); Christopher Cox (CA); Richard Burr (NC); Brian Bilbray (CA); Edward Whitfield (KY); Greg Ganske (IA); Daniel Frisa (NY); Charles Norwood (GA); Rick White (WA); Tom Coburn (OK) Democrats: John Dingell (MI); Henry Waxman (CA) ; Edward Mareky (MA); Billy Tauzin (LA); Ron Wyden (OR); Ralph Hall (TX); John Bryant (TX); Rick Boucher (VA); Thomas Manton (NY); Edolphus Towns (NY); Gerry Studds (MA); Frank Pallone (NJ); Sherrod Brown (OH); Blanche Lambert Lincoln (AR); Bart Gordon (TN); Elizabeth Furse (OR); Peter Deutsch (FL); Bobby Rush (IL); Anna Eschoo (CA); Ron Klink (PA); Bart Stupak (MI) Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: Republicans: Frank Murkowski (AK), Chair; Mark Hatfield (OR); Pete Domenici (NM); Don Nickles (OK); James Jeffords (VT); Conrad Burns (MT); Larry Craig (ID); Jon Kyl (AZ); Craig Thomas (WY); Rod Grams (MN) Democrats: Bennett Johnston (LA); Dale Bumpers (AR); Wendell Ford (KY); Bill Bradley (NJ); Jeff Bingaman (NM); Daniel Akaka (HI); Paul Wellstone (MN); Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO); House Resources Committee: Republicans: Don Young (AK), Chair; James Hansen (UT); Jim Saxton (NJ); Elton Gallegly (CA); John Duncan (TN); Joel Hefley (CO); John Doolittle (CA); Wayne Allard (CO); Wayne Gilchrest (MD); Ken Calvert (CA); Richard Pombo (CA); Peter Torkildsen (MA); J.D. Hayworth (AZ); Frank Cremeans (OH); Barbara Cubin (WY); Wes Cooley (OR); Helen Chenoweth (ID); Linda Smith (WA); George Radanovich (CA); Walter Jones (NC); Mac Thornberry (TX); Richard Hastings (WA); Jack Metcalf (WA); Jim Longley (ME); John Shadegg (AZ) Democrats: George Miller (CA); Nick Joe Rahall (WV); Bruce Vento (MN); Dale Kildee (MI); Pat Williams (MT); Sam Gejdenson (CT); Bill Richardson (NM); Peter DeFazio (OR); Eni Faleomavaega (AmerSamoa); Tim Johnson (SD); Neil Abercrombie (HI); Gerry Studds (MA); Billy Tauzin (LA); Solomon Ortiz (TX); Calvin Dooley (CA); Carlos Romero-Barcelo (Del-PR); Nathan Deal (GA); Maurice Hinchey (NY); Robert Underwood (Del-Guam); Sam Farr (CA) Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: Republicans: John Chafee (RI), Chair; John Warner (VA); Bob Smith (NH); Lauch Faircloth (NC); Dirk Kempthorne (ID); James Inhofe (OK); Craig Thomas (WY); Mitch McConnell (KY); Christopher Bond (MO) Democrats: Max Baucus (MT); Daniel Patrick Moynihan (NY); Frank Lautenberg (NJ); Harry Reid (NV); Bob Graham (FL); Joseph Lieberman (CT); Barbara Boxer (CA) House Science Committee: Republicans: Robert Walker (PA), Chair; James Sensenbrenner (WI); Sherwood Boehlert (NY); Harris Fawell (IL); Constance Morella (MD); Curt Weldon (PA); Dana Rohrabacher (CA); Steven Schiff (NM); Joe Barton (TX); Ken Calvert (CA); Bill Baker (CA); Roscoe Bartlett (MD); Vern Ehlers (MI); Zach Wamp (TN); Dave Weldon (FL); Lindsey Graham (SC); Matt Salmon (AZ); Tom Davis (VA); Steve Stockman (TX); Gil Gutknecht (MN); Andrea Seastrand (CA); Todd Tiahrt (KS); Steve Largent (OK); Van Hilleary (TN); Barbara Cubin (WY); Mark Foley (FL); Sue Myrick (NC) Democrats: George Brown (CA); Ralph Hall (TX); James Traficant (OH); James Hayes (LA); John Tanner (TN); Peter Geren (TX); Tim Roemer (IN); Robert Cramer (AL); James Barcia (MI); Paul Mchale (PA); Jane Harman (CA); Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX); David Minge (MN); John Oliver (MA); Alcee Hastings (FL); Lynn Rivers (MI); Karen McCarthy (MO); Mike Ward (KY); Zoe Lofgren (CA); Lloyd Doggett (TX); Mike Doyle (PA); Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX); Bill Luther (MN) ------------ End Forwarded Message ------------- From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Mar 29 18:27:33 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04904; Wed, 29 Mar 95 18:27:31 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03780; 29 Mar 95 18:27 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA29121; Wed, 29 Mar 95 15:23:34 PST Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 15:23:34 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: NSF funding situation (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:07:00 EST From: di5 Subject: NSF funding situation To: Multiple recipients of list ECOLOG-L I'm forwarding this message that was posted on the AOUNET-L list, because many ECOLOG-L subscribers are probably interested in NSF funding. David Inouye, list owner Message sent from Dave Vleck It looks like the optimism I expressed to you yesterday about NSF funding was misplaced. Both Senate and House appropriations hearings last week were short and negative. Both houses want NSF to plan for a 20% budget reduction in fiscal 1996, and the executive branch's plan imposes further cuts over the next 4 years using FY'96 as a baseline. Because the Foundation already has substantial financial commitments extending through the next two or three fiscal years, that may make next year a very lean one. The National Science Board will meet in the next week or two and try to prioritize the Foundation's goals, and we will know more about the impact of potential cuts after that. The immediate impact will be to minimize future commitments by fully funding more proposals now rather than spreading those costs over future years. That will translate into a cut in the number of proposals we can fund this year, as well as in future years. Unfortunately, most of the deadlines for submitting proposals to be funded in this fiscal year are past, but I'd encourage anyone who can still make a deadline (like the Terrestrial Ecology/Global Change competition) to go for it now, rather than waiting for the next cycle. The sentiment around the Foundation is that this cut will be much more destructive than those of the Reagan years. The extent of the damage (from our perspective) will depend on how the cut is apportioned, and how cuts in other agency's funding affects demand on NSF resources. Concerned individuals may wish to contact their elected representatives directly. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Mar 30 12:23:53 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00231; Thu, 30 Mar 95 12:23:51 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09661; 30 Mar 95 12:23 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03191; Thu, 30 Mar 95 09:16:49 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA27793; Thu, 30 Mar 1995 10:15:03 -0700 Message-Id: <9503301715.AA27793@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 10:15:03 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF authorization/budget Status: OR > From jroskosk@nsf.gov Mon Mar 20 11:48:39 1995 > Received: by turututu.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) > id AA12105; Mon, 20 Mar 1995 11:48:37 -0700 > Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by alcor.unm.edu with smtp > (Smail3.1.28.1 #10) id m0rqmVH-00007XC; Mon, 20 Mar 95 11:48 MST > Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA16299 > (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 20 Mar 1995 13:48:58 -0500 > Received: from cc:Mail by xrelay.nsf.gov > id AA795735198; Mon, 20 Mar 95 10:47:46 EST > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 10:47:46 EST > From: jroskosk@nsf.gov > Message-Id: <9502207957.AA795735198@xrelay.nsf.gov> > To: deball@nsf.gov, jgosz%turututu@unm.edu > Subject: Congressional Update > > This update is designed to provide you with a summary of the recent > events in the Congressional budget process and some observations about > what it means for NSF and where things are going. > > First, what should we make of Rep Jerry Lewis' comment at last > Tuesday's appropriations subcommittee hearing about NSF facing a 20% > reduction? I suggest that we need to appreciate that the President's > FY 1996 request for all of the agencies and programs covered by the > VA, HUD, and Indepedent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee is higher > than FY 1995. Chairman Lewis is convinced that his subcommittee's > allocation will be lower -- not higher -- than last year. At this > point how much lower is hard to say and lots of estimates are floating > around. I believe the message in Chairman Lewis' question is that he > will be severely constrained, every program (including science) will > be vulnerable, and he is driving this message home in similar ways to > all the agencies that come before his subcommittee. > > Second, the House passed and sent to the Senate the FY 1995 > rescissions bill. The bill contains over $17 billion worth of > rescissions -- with housing and education programs talking some of the > biggest reductions. For NSF, the $132 million rescission, we in fact > proposed, was included in the House passed bill. It is worth noting > that a number of amendments were offered during the House's debate on > the bill. The rule governing these amendments said that for any > amendment to restore funds to a particular program, offsetting cuts > would have to be found and they could only come from programs within > the same appropriations subcommittee for which the restoration was > being proposed. So if one wanted to restore funding for veterans' > programs, the offsetting reductions would have to come only from > housing or environmental programs, or the space program or NSF or any > one of the other agencies or accounts in the VA HUD Subcommittee's > jurisdiction. > > During the floor debate, an amendment was offered to restore some $200 > million in funding for veterans' medical care activities. The > offsets, originally proposed as coming from NASA, ulimately came from > further reductions in the national service program. If there is any > good news in all of this, it is that none of the amendments which were > offered to restore funds from some activity proposed to offset that > restoration with reductions in NSF. This might be seen for NSF > supporters as dodging a bullet successfully -- albeit temporarily. > This rescission bill now goes over to the Senate where we expect the > appropriations subcommittees to begin marking up their versions of the > rescission bill next week. > > But the bullets to be dodged didn't end with the rescission bill this > week. This week the House Budget Committee began its process of > trying to cut discretionary spending as part of its overall plan to > move towards a balanced budget by the year 2002. The first step began > with their mark up of a bill to lower the discretionary spending caps > now in law and to extend them to the year 2000. Based on information > released by the Budget Commiittee, the discretionary spending levels > they are recommending would reduce spending by $100 billion over the > next five years. At the same time, the House Budget Committee > released a list of suggested programs or activities that could be > reduced or eliminated to achieve the $100 billion reduction. The > House Budget Committee was clear that its list was for illustrative > purposes only and that specific funding decisions needed to reach the > $100 billion reduction would be up to the authorizing and > appropriations committees. However, it is hard to imagine that the > list they developed was done in total insolation from the committees > with jurisdiction for the programs mentioned. > > Some of the items on the list of suggested cuts include: energy > supply research and development, NIH reduced by 5%, NOAA to be > restructured to save $1.185 billion over 5 years, re-evaluate NASA's > mission to planet earth to save $326 million, adopt President's > management reforms for the NASA's human space flight and science -- > aeronautics and technology; reduce some $723 million from the GOALS > 2000 programs at the Education Department, dissolve the Interior > Department's National Biological Survey, eliminate HUD's policy > development and research, eliminate EPA's environmental technology > initiative, and so on. NSF may have temporarily dodged another bullet > since we are not included on this list -- and Rep Bob Walker's > presence on the House Budget Committee as Vice Chairman probably had > something to do with that outcome. However, this is only the first > phase in the FY96 budget process. When the Budget Committee goes to > draft the budget resolution later this spring, they will probably have > to recommend even more cuts as they try to put out a multi-year budget > designed to be balanced by 2002. > > Finally, I believe that our authorization process in the House will > be somewhat "on hold" until the budget resolution process gets further > along. Some are now speculating that the budget resolution process > may be used to further the objectives of some in the Congress to > eliminate a number of departments such as energy and education. There > are a number of House freshman at work on major > reorganization/elimination proposals. In addition, the Senate > Majority Leader, Senator Robert Dole (R-KS), has announced that he > will be working on legislation to eliminate four cabinet level > departments -- including housing, energy, commerce, and education. > The announcement by Senator Dole has changed the dynamics, heightened > Congressional interest in this issue, and added prominence to Rep Bob > Walker's proposal for a department of science. The department of > science proposal is seen by some as place to transfer the remaining > functions that are left after the demise of these cabinet level > departments. > > > In assessing the situation thus far, I would say NSF has weathered > a couple of storms fairly well so far. However, the budget > environment will continue to be grim and, in that context, the > proposals for elimination of certain cabinet departments will almost > certainly re-energize the department of science proposals. It goes > without saying that all of this will continue to have significant > impacts and implications for NSF in the weeks and months ahead. > > > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Mar 31 11:10:52 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03701; Fri, 31 Mar 95 11:10:50 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa14389; 31 Mar 95 11:10 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11277; Fri, 31 Mar 95 08:09:53 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA07175; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 09:08:08 -0700 Message-Id: <9503311608.AA07175@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 09:08:08 MST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Status: OR potential funds if you are interested. > From bhthomps@nsf.gov Fri Mar 31 08:28:59 1995 > Received: from localhost by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA22925 > (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 31 Mar 1995 10:30:11 -0500 > Message-Id: <199503311530.AA22925@note1.nsf.gov> > To: jgosz > Subject: Re: Environmental Professionals with NIS experience > In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Mar 95 07:04:18 EST." > > Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 10:30:11 EST > From: "Bonnie H. Thompson" > > > This could represent another source of funds...FYI...pursue directly > if there is interest. > > How was the meeting in Europe? > > Bonnie Thompson > > -----------------------forwarded message----------------------------- > Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 07:04:18 -0500 > To: "Melissa L. Stone, Kompass Resources Int'l" , > praven@nas.edu, Bonnie Thompson > From: lindav@cultural.org (by way of sgoldste@nsf.gov (Steve Goldstein)) > Subject: Environmental Professionals with NIS experience > > The International Training and Development Institute is currently > searching for environmental professionals with experience in the NIS > in order to provide training to Russian officials and scientists > coming to Seattle at the end of May. We are searching for: > > 1. Instructors with experience in biodiversity management, creation of > protected areas, biological monitoring, restoration of habitats, > anti-poaching. > 2. Instructors with experience in Sustainable Land Use management, > zoning maps, GIS, US land use laws. In this area, we are specifically > looking for people who are familiar with the Baikal region. > > We would prefer to have professionals with PHD's or significant > experience in the area, including training experience. Instructors > should be familiar with the relevant environmental issues of the > Russian Far East, and should have conducted work in the NIS. Fluency > in the Russian language is not a requirement, although it would be > preferred. > > If you are interested in working on one of these training programs, > please fax your resume before March 31 to: > > Attn: Linda VerNooy, Fax: 206-217-9643. > > Please indicate whether your experience is more relevant to No. 1 or > No. 2 listed above, or both 1 and 2. > > > From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Fri Mar 31 11:35:12 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03829; Fri, 31 Mar 95 11:35:11 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22603; 31 Mar 95 11:35 EST Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11476; Fri, 31 Mar 95 08:31:11 PST Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA17150; Fri, 31 Mar 95 09:29:22 MST Message-Id: <9503311629.AA17150@ladrones.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 09:29:22 -0700 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: International trip to Eastern Europe Cc: jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu, mallen@nsf.gov, jroskosk@nsf.gov, bhthomps@nsf.gov, jerry@lternet.edu Status: OR I will be assembling a team of LTER scientists/data managers to travel to Prague in June, 1995, to interact with a group of scientists from Poland, Czech Republic and Slovak Republic for potential interactions between research sites in Eastern Europe and LTER sites. We anticipate that the travel will occur around the period June 10-20 and be for about a 7 day period (travel included). The exact dates have not been determined at this time. We will travel to Prague and spend a day or so for a general introduction to the sites and science that has been performed, then travel to 2 or 3 sites by bus. The sites are: Krkonose/Karkonosze Bilateral reserve, Krivoklat reserve, Trebon Basin reserve. These three sites span a range of habitats from managed ponds, wetlands, deciduous forests, conifer forests, subalpine and alpine. Many have been studied for long periods, up to 200 years!! This represents an excellent opportunity to develop an international collaboration with a very important region in Europe. If you are interested and have the time during that period, please let me know ASAP. I would like to develop a team that represents plant, animal, microbial, information management,.... from a number of different LTER sites. I hope to have a list of potential names to take to the CC meeting for final approval. I will take some descriptive material on the sites to the CC meeting at VCR. jim gosz From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Apr 2 09:47:46 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01956; Sun, 2 Apr 95 09:47:45 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24546; 2 Apr 95 9:47 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20797; Sun, 2 Apr 95 06:48:17 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05546; Sun, 2 Apr 1995 07:46:34 -0600 Message-Id: <9504021346.AA05546@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sun, 2 Apr 95 07:46:34 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Congress activity Status: OR Presidential Science Advisors Meeting FYI No. 47, March 31, 1995 Earlier this week, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) held their second meeting. As expected, there was considerable discussion about the changes which have occurred in Washington since their first meeting last fall, and what these changes portend for federal science and technology policy and funding. PCAST has 19 members drawn from academia and industry, and is co-chaired by OSTP Director John Gibbons and John Young, former president and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co. The entire committee meets at approximately 100 day intervals, with more frequent meetings of various working groups. PCAST provides science and technology advice to the president. Gibbons opened the meeting by discussing administration efforts to reduce the deficit, saying that the schedule for balancing the federal budget "will frame a lot of debate" in Congress. "How to create and sustain" investment in science and technology while cutting the deficit will be a challenge, Gibbons warned. Initial discussion focused on young investigators in health research, university funding, basic v. applied research, and the advanced technology program (ATP). Regarding ATP and DOD's TRP program, Gibbons admitted that supporters "haven't been describing these things very well." "People who know these issues are losing the language battle," one participant noted. To counter criticism of these programs it was agreed that PCAST should take a more active role. M.R.C. Greenwood of OSTP (who is leaving this position) gave a candid presentation on fundamental science policy and funding. She described the current mood in Congress as "anything you can cut I can cut better." Greenwood discussed the possibility of changing agency mission roles, and how this could create holes in federal support of research. She cautioned that various budget reductions could result in "dying the death of a million cuts." Other topics at the first day's meeting were the role of science and technology in national security, and various initiatives in sustainable development, health, education, and high performance computing and communications. During the afternoon session, NASA Director Daniel Goldin discussed the just-released findings of a task force on the agency's restructuring (to be covered in a future FYI.) Charles Curtis, Undersecretary of the Department of Energy, briefed PCAST members on the national laboratory task force report, saying that "we remain open" about corporatizing the labs (although he did not seem overly enthusiastic about this proposal.) Craig Dorman of the Department of Defense discussed a review of DOD research units. All of these efforts will be combined into a report to be given to President Clinton within the next few months. The second day of the PCAST meeting open to the public was devoted to a discussion with House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) and ranking minority member George Brown (D-CA). Their remarks, and reactions to them, with be the subject of FYI #48. Also covered in a future FYI will be formation of a new PCAST working group on fusion energy. At the conclusion of the PCAST meeting a statement was released. It stated, "Funding for science and technology programs is our nation's most fundamental investment in our future and our children's future.... In the debate over national spending priorities, we must take time to assess carefully the impact of proposed cuts on our Nation's ability to maintain world-class science and technology..... We must lead the pack or lose the race -- and the jobs that go with it.... In the face of mounting pressure to reduce science and technology spending, PCAST supports our National commitment to maintain a robust R&D portfolio. The President must promote this investment as essential for our nation's long term prosperity and security." ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Apr 2 09:49:04 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01961; Sun, 2 Apr 95 09:49:02 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24614; 2 Apr 95 9:49 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20806; Sun, 2 Apr 95 06:49:47 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05582; Sun, 2 Apr 1995 07:48:04 -0600 Message-Id: <9504021348.AA05582@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sun, 2 Apr 95 07:48:04 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Congress activity Status: OR House VA/HUD Chair Lewis Supportive of NASA FYI No. 49, March 31, 1995 Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) of the House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee heard testimony on NASA's FY 1996 budget request in a hearing that began on March 28 and continued on March 30. Over the two days of the hearing, Lewis showed himself to be a supporter of NASA, and particularly the space station. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin testified that President Clinton has asked the space agency to cut $5 billion over the next five years from a budget profile that has already been reduced by 30 percent in the last two years. He contended that the way to reduce the budget was not to cancel programs, but to reduce NASA's outdated and redundant infrastructure. One thing Goldin insisted upon was that the space station program should not take any more cuts. Lewis cautioned that the station was likely to be a target for cuts or termination on the House floor, and asked for the Administration's help in defending it. Ranking Minority Member Louis Stokes (D-OH) questioned how, since the subcommittee was confronted with cuts in public housing programs, Goldin could justify the statement that "it is crucial not to touch the space station budget?" "Shouldn't every program have to share in the belt-tightening?" Stokes asked. But Goldin responded that, through restructuring, NASA had "done our cut" on the space station. He argued that stability in the program's budget (currently frozen by OMB at $2.1 billion a year) was vital, and reiterated that "if station is cut in Congress, I will recommend its cancellation." Lewis warned that the station "is a very high priority item that's probably going to face difficulties" this year. With so many new Members, he said, "we have a very serious education job to do here." Tom Delay (R-TX) tried to get Goldin to admit to uncertainty in recent Mission to Planet Earth findings that the ozone hole is primarily the result of man-made chemicals, but Goldin supported the peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Lewis remarked that while he felt strongly about environmental concerns, he worried about "a reaction in Congress that could take us back a long way." He also concurred with Stokes on concerns over cuts to NASA's programs to encourage women, minorities and the handicapped. In the context of NASA's budget reductions, Lewis inquired about the agency's planned new starts, including the New Millennium spacecraft and a program to study a reusable launch vehicle. Goldin said the budget-tightening required a "revolution" in NASA's missions, and added that he would cancel "a whole host" of other programs before touching the revolutionary new programs. After being reassured that budget reductions would not compromise the safety of the shuttle program, subcommittee members raised questions about shuttle privatization, as recommended in a recent report. Goldin, while not opposing the suggestion, said that efficiencies would not be achieved if the U.S. government was the only customer. The second day focused primarily on space science. Noting that Gravity Probe B was still awaiting review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Lewis asked what NASA would cut to fund the mission if it received NAS approval. Goldin said no offsets had been identified yet, so that NAS would not be comparing it directly with another program. He expected to have the NAS recommendation by June 1, but Lewis protested that the subcommittee hoped to mark up their bill at that time. Goldin promised to try to move up the NAS report by a few weeks. Questioned about a requested funding increase in Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) for space physics, Goldin reported that it was due to two launches last year, but he added that, in arguing for continuation of the Global Geospace missions, space physicists had forfeited an opportunity for new starts. Asked by Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) about how far NASA should go in privatization, Goldin suggested that, while the government needed to do long-term R&D, some other areas that could be done better by industry might be launch services, information systems, and operations. Kaptur questioned why, since industry profits were up and "Wall Street is happy," companies were not investing more in long-term R&D. Goldin answered that to be prosperous, they were Next week, the Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee will hold its hearing on NASA's budget request. ############### Public Information Division American Institute of Physics Contact: Audrey T. Leath fyi@aip.org (301) 209-3094 ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Apr 2 09:49:09 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01965; Sun, 2 Apr 95 09:49:08 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24625; 2 Apr 95 9:49 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20802; Sun, 2 Apr 95 06:49:21 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05569; Sun, 2 Apr 1995 07:47:38 -0600 Message-Id: <9504021347.AA05569@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Sun, 2 Apr 95 07:47:38 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Congress activity Status: OR Walker and Brown Speak at Presidential Science Advisors Meeting FYI No. 48, March 31, 1995 On the second day of this week's meeting of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), there was an hour long discussion with two invited guests: House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) and ranking minority member George Brown (D-CA). Walker's views are important not only because he chairs this committee, but also because he is vice chairman of the House Budget Committee. Walker began by saying that he is limited in his policy options because of the budget situation, and described as "real" House Republican efforts to balance the budget by 2002. Science "will be part of that new calculation," he said. Walker called for a "sense of prioritization.... That is the message I have been trying to send." The House Budget Committee may call for the elimination of the Departments of Energy and Commerce, Walker stated. If that occurs, plans must be made for moving the weapons labs and the energy research functions of DOE. It would "not be a very good marriage" for the National Science Foundation to take on the energy research function, he contended. As a possible alternative Walker proposed the establishment of a new Department of Science (see below for a legislative history of a previous attempt by Walker for such a department.) While this would entail some problems, it also has distinct advantages, Walker said, adding that House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-OH) was giving it some attention. In response to questions, Walker called for making the R&D tax credit permanent, and exploring the possibility of using it as an incentive for businesses to assist in academic infrastructure modernization and instrumentation. When asked about the funding of basic and applied research, he replied that "the issue here is prioritization," with basic science support as the prime federal role. Rep. Brown said that he is in agreement with Walker on 75-80% of science policy issues, citing the SSC and the space station as examples. He spoke of the tightness of the job market and future education and employment alternatives. It is clear, he said, that the days of the "open spigot" of federal money have ended. When asked about the space station, both representatives were supportive, although Brown cautioned that budget competition could overtake the program. Walker predicted that as long as the White House continues to support the space station it will survive. Both felt that an authorizing bill would ensure a long term commitment for the program. In a briefing following the PCAST meeting, PCAST co-chairs John Gibbons and John Young tried to temper what seems to be rapid movement to recast the federal structure supporting science and technology. Young said that a new Department of Science is usually proposed during every big government shake-up, and spoke of an "overheated sense of urgency." "Haste can make waste," Gibbons added. Young felt that there is not a "compelling case" for such a new department, but added he would be interested in hearing one. Gibbons noted that the administration's National Science and Technology Council coordinated federal programs, and that the administration was saving money through its efforts to reinvent government. This proposal, Gibbons concluded, "needs a little more thought." Chairman Walker's proposal to create a new Department of Science dates back at least two years. In March of 1993 he introduced legislation to establish a Department of Science, Space, Energy, and Technology. It would have transferred to this new department NASA, NIST, NSF, NOAA, EPA, the National Technical Information Service, "all but certain facilities of the Department of Energy, renamed the National Energy Administration," and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. H.R. 1300 was cosponsored by Rep. George Brown, and Rep. Steven Schiff (R-NM). Schiff is now chairman of the House science subcommittee with jurisdiction over the NSF. The bill had 12 cosponsors, and was referred to the House Government Operations Committee, which never held a hearing. This is not entirely surprising, since the committee was under the control of a Democratic chairman at the time. That situation has, of course, changed. How much support now exists for this concept is an unknown; key Members on both sides of the Capitol have expressed support for retaining the Department of Energy. Also unknown is how such a cabinet-level department would ultimately affect science policy and funding. ############### From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Apr 7 20:11:57 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21785; Fri, 7 Apr 95 20:11:56 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19231; 7 Apr 95 20:11 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05805; Fri, 7 Apr 95 17:08:11 PDT Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 17:08:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Dr. Pulliam's statement before Congress on NBS funding (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR STATEMENT OF H. RONALD PULLIAM, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SERVICE, BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES ________________________ March 23, 1995 Chairman Regula, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today and present the Fiscal Year 1996 budget request of the National Biological Service (NBS). The Mission of NBS Management and policy decisions regarding the conservation and use of our nation's natural resources directly impact the prosperity and well-being of all citizens. All too often these decisions are based on incomplete, uncertain, or unreliable scientific information and inadequate information often leads to unjustified and unfair decisions. Disagreements over such basic facts as "Is this species declining or not?", impede discussion and resolution of real problems. The National Biological Service was created to ensure that the science used in management and conservation decisions is sound, unbiased, and freely available. NBS has no regulatory or resource management responsibilities and our scientific results are not biased by management or regulatory agendas. We are committed to improving the quality of scientific information by having rigorous peer review of our research methods, analyses, and conclusions, and by making our scientific information fully available to all parties involved in and affected by natural resource decisions. Our job is to provide better information so that better and fairer decisions can be made. NBS is a scientific organization devoted to working with others to provide the information and technologies needed to manage our nation's biological resources. Our primary customers are other Department of Interior bureaus, and we focus most of our research on Interior lands and trust species. NBS also has an important role in building a national partnership for identifying biological resource information needs and making existing biological data available. NBS works with other federal agencies, state and local governments, industry, academic institutions, other private organizations, and individual citizens. Our goals are to make certain that reliable biological information is available and that all parties involved in making decisions about biological resources have access to that information. Providing better information and making it widely available to all interested parties will aid significantly in resolving natural resource issues before they become intractable. NBS's mission is not to produce a giant survey of the nation's flora and fauna. Inventory and monitoring or "survey" nation's flora and fauna. Inventory and monitoring or "survey"H----------------------------------------------- -------------------- activities account for less than 15 percent of NBS's budget. It would be physically impossible and of dubious value from a scientific point of view to census all plants and animals in the United States. NBS does provide statistically reliable data on the status and trends of carefully selected biological resources, with a strong focus on Interior lands and trust species. NBS does a limited amount of work on private land, but all individuals working on behalf of NBS are required to obey all trespass laws and NBS always obtains written permission from land owners before conducting any new surveys on private property. The NBS role in responding to the need for improved information on status and trends is not to conduct major new and comprehensive surveys. Rather, NBS seeks to develop and encourage common methodologies that ensure the reliability of information collected by federal, state, academic, and private entities. Such a common "architecture" can ensure that public and private funds are used efficiently to develop a reliable understanding of the true condition of our resources. The Need for Solid Scientific Information More statistically reliable information on the status of biological resources is required to support the sound management of our public lands. A recent report on the "Status of biotic inventories in US National Parks" (Stohlgren et al 1995) indicates that most of our national parks have do not have good inventories even of their bird, mammal, and vascular plant species. The status of most species of reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates is virtually unknown, even in the best studied of our parks and wildlife refuges. Despite the lack of this basic information, public lands are increasingly viewed as important refuges for biological diversity, and managers of all public lands are increasingly required to consider biological resources in their management plans. In addition to managing public lands, the Department of Interior has significant trust responsibilities for migratory birds, anadromous fishes, and threatened and endangered species. Accordingly, NBS has responsibility for working to ensure that better information is available on Interior lands and trust species. One of the benefits of having an independent, non- regulatory science bureau like NBS is that such information can be provided before environmental concerns become crises. Options for action, including voluntary solutions outside a regulatory context, can be taken proactively, and this is one reason why a number of non-government organizations, including private industries, are working collaboratively with NBS. By working in partnership with private landowners and industry, NBS obtains better information on the status and trends of DOI trust species and provides its partners with valuable information about how biological resources can be protected without interfering with other uses of their lands. ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- NBS recognizes that reliable scientific information can "cut both ways", in that sometimes it may be used for more species protection and sometimes it may be used to provide relief from government regulations. Some information gathered by NBS will please the development community; for example, the "downlisting" of protected species or removal of species from Endangered Species Act candidate lists. Some information will result in identifying and resolving problems related to species decline before new listings are required. NBS believes that if accurate information is provided in a timely fashion, it can lead to more "win-win" situations that promote both a prosperous economy and a healthy environment. Since NBS is not a regulatory or management agency, it can devote its efforts to ensuring that better information is available to those that do make management and policy decisions so that better and fairer decisions are made and conflicts are avoided. Meeting DOI Bureau Needs Although NBS is an independent science bureau, we are committed to providing other Interior bureaus with the responsive scientific help they need. Every year, NBS solicits priorities for biological research from other Interior bureaus and directs its research efforts towards meeting their highest priority needs. We also facilitate regular interaction between our NBS Science Centers and field stations and the local and regional leadership of other DOI bureaus to determine their needs and priorities at the local level. While we are committed to meeting the priority science needs of DOI bureaus and working with them to solve their natural resource problems, the other bureaus do not control the conduct of the research or oversee the dissemination of the research results. Budget Overview NBS's FY 1996 budget request totals $172.7 million, which is $5.9 million, or 3.5%, more than our FY 1995 enacted level. We recognize the stringent budgetary constraints confronting all governmental programs and have made significant efforts to redirect existing resources to fund a portion of our new needs, as well as initiating various partnership arrangements to leverage available resources and avoid duplication of efforts. As part of the President's Reinventing Government Initiative, all Federal agencies are reexamining their mission. This includes: addressing the mission based on "customer" input; asking whether the mission could be accomplished as well or better without Federal involvement; looking for ways to cut costs or improve performance through competition; and ways to put customers first, cut red tape, and empower employees. We have been actively participating in this effort since NBS was formed. NBS is requesting a total of $84.6 million in FY 1996 for Research on Species Biology, Population Dynamics and Ecosystems. We are continuing to support the Department's focus on key national and local issues in requesting an additional $1.5 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- million in funding for the Everglades and other habitats of South Florida. Our scientists will work with the USGS and others to develop hydrologic models and link these with biological models, so as to evaluate the effects on species and habitats of the alternatives for restoration now being considered by the Corps of Engineers. NBS currently co-chairs the Science Subcommittee of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. The task of this subcommittee is to "recommend research and a process for coordinating research on the South Florida ecosystem." In addition to conducting research on the habitat requirements and population dynamics of species, NBS is developing regional databases, coordinating reviews to identify research needs, and developing new predictive models. We are also seeking an increase of $0.4 million for research in the Pacific Northwest. This increase will be used for developing watershed models in critical ecosystems, and to contribute to the understanding of habitat and resource needs of a variety of species, including anadromous fish. The United States has lost millions of acres of productive land to exotic weeds, especially in the arid West. In addition to reducing the amount of land available for forage and other economic impacts, exotic weeds contribute to a host of ecological problems, including increased erosion and sedimentation and the loss of native species. Techniques for managing and responding to invasive exotic plants on western rangeland is one of the highest priority needs identified to NBS by other Interior bureaus. NBS is requesting $610,000 to understand the factors that make arid grasslands vulnerable to invasion by nonindigenous species, to understand the ecological impacts of these weeds, and to provide information needed to help control their spread. Another critical need identified by other Interior bureaus is information and tools that help predict the effects of management actions on habitats and species. NBS is requesting $800,000 to work with other Interior bureaus to predict how various management options available to resource managers will impact the future status of biological resources of particular management concern on DOI lands. Our approach will include development of user-friendly, multi-species models that allow managers to see how alternative resource management options might simultaneously impact a variety of species with different habitat requirements. Under the Inventory and Monitoring subactivity, NBS is proposing to increase our efforts in understanding the relationship between social and economic factors and ecological processes. This critical area of research has been identified by other Interior bureaus and by the Interagency Committee on other Interior bureaus and by the Interagency Committee ont and Natural Resources as an area underfunded in the past. Part of these funds will be used for studies of how economic incentives, such as those for set-asides under the Conservation Reserve Program, impact biological resources. ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Another approach will be to work with local and state governments in studies combining models of economic growth with ecological models to determine where future conflicts between economic growth and conservation might occur. Past support for research to understand and avoid conflicts between ecology and economics at the community, State, and regional level has been inadequate even though the link between economic and ecological health has been widely recognized. Also under the Inventory and Monitoring activity, we are requesting funding to develop a uniform system of ecological classification. Clearly, the existence of multiple systems for mapping and naming forests, grasslands, and other plant communities, and the lack of a means to "translate" from one to another is inefficient. NBS will work closely with the U.S. Forest Service, other Interior bureaus, and the scientific community at large to develop a common approach that meets the needs of all parties conducting ecological mapping and research. A high priority for NBS is to make existing scientific data and information more accessible to all parties involved in decision making. In the Information Transfer subactivity, NBS is requesting $2.9 million to improve access to biological information through the National Partnership for Biological Science. Much biological information can be found outside of NBS, in government, universities, and museums. We believe that these organizations should continue to be repositories for this information. Our goal is to work with partners to identify, organize, and integrate data so that everyone has access to it via an electronic directory and network. As a key part of this multi-sector partnership, we are asking for increased funding for our State Partnership program that allows NBS to work collaboratively with State agencies to establish protocols and standards for data collection, analysis, and dissemination. States are important collectors and managers of biological data, and in many cases, serve as primary links to other data holders. The Cooperative Research Unit program has been the Nation's most successful partnership in fish and wildlife management. This program consists of partnerships for research and graduate education between NBS, State Fish and Game agencies, and universities in 40 states. NBS provides $15 million each year and States contribute at least $12 million annually. The Coop Unit program employs scientists who are nationally and internationally recognized as experts in their field. Collectively these units are involved in over 1,400 research projects as well as in providing technical assistance to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and others. NBS is seeking an additional $500,000 for this program in FY 1996. This will be used to establish new units in two states. Interested States are being asked to submit proposals for them, and describe the strengths -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of potential cooperators and the support that they will provide to a prospective Cooperative Research Unit. In summary, NBS is a strong scientific organization conducting independent, objective research in support of sound management of the Nation's biological resources. It is my hope that the Committee recognizes that too many decisions are made on the basis of inadequate information, that science is best performed by an independent, non-regulatory, and non-advocacy organization, and that NBS is part of the solution, not part of the problem. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I am happy to take any questions that the Committee may have. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Apr 13 22:21:28 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14268; Thu, 13 Apr 95 22:21:26 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12221; 13 Apr 95 22:21 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13385; Thu, 13 Apr 95 19:19:37 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA25983; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 20:17:59 -0600 Message-Id: <9504140217.AA25983@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 20:17:59 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Status: OR > From wspaeth@usgcrp.gov Tue Apr 11 11:38:07 1995 > Received: from usgcrp.gov (earth.usgcrp.gov) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu > (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23675; Tue, 11 Apr 95 10:39:40 PDT > Received: from [131.182.242.194] (sealevel.usgcrp.gov) by usgcrp.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) > id AA17209; Tue, 11 Apr 95 13:35:39 EDT > X-Sender: wspaeth@earth.usgcrp.gov > Message-Id: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 13:34:06 -0400 > To: exec.office@usgcrp.gov > From: wspaeth@usgcrp.gov (Warren Spaeth) > Subject: NRC COMMISSIONED TO STUDY GOVT. R&D ALLOCATION > Cc: doe.process@usgcrp.gov, gm_stokes@pnl.gov, wt_pennell@pnl.gov, > ts_cress@pnl.gov, em_baroni@pnl.gov, wg.process@usgcrp.gov, > other.process@usgcrp.gov > > TO ALL: > > Came across the following report dealing with the fact the NRC has been > commissioned by Congress to do a study on, ".. "the criteria that should be > used in judging the appropriate allocation of funds to research and > development activities, the appropriate balance among different types of > institutions that conduct such research, and the means of assuring > continued objectivity in the allocation process." The language for this > study was attached to a report from the Senate Appropriations Committee on > the funding of NIH (National Institutes of Health), but in effect covers > all of the federal R&D research budget effort. The Report is due 31 > December 1995. > > How this report might be used by the Republican majority in Congress is an > interesting item to ponder? > > FYI, Warren > > ********************************************************* > > Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development > National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of > Medicine National Research Council Study on the Criteria for Federal > Support of Research and Development > ********************************************************* > > In a report accompanying funding for the National Institutes of Health for > Fiscal Year 1995, the Senate Appropriations Committee mandated a study from > the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. > > The study is to address "the criteria that should be used in judging the > appropriate allocation of funds to research and development activities, the > appropriate balance among different types of institutions that conduct such > research, and the means of assuring continued objectivity in the allocation > process." > > The study originated from the Committee's concern "that at a time when > there is much opportunity to understand and cure disease, funding for > health research supported by NIH in the next fiscal year is held to below > the inflation rate for medical research due to budget constraints. > > Similarly, other Federal research agencies are confronted with constrained > resources resulting from the virtual freeze in discretionary outlays." > > The Academy has responded to the request by appointing a study committee, > chaired by Frank Press, to prepare a report to be delivered to the Congress > and the sponsors by December 31, 1995. The study will be conducted as an > activity of the entire Academy Complex (the National Academy of Sciences, > the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the > National Research Council) in consultation with the Office of Science and > Technology Policy. The study will look at the process for changing federal > R&D allocations in light of dynamic global conditions, rapid developments > in science and technology, shifts in national needs, and expectations of > constrained overall real growth in budgets. The study will be staffed by > Norman Metzger (study director), Robert Cook-Deegan, Julie Esanu, and > Danielle Dehmler. The report will assess funding for R&D across the federal > government, focusing on criteria and processes. It will not recommend which > areas deserve more funding relative to others, but will outline a rational > procedure for allocation of resources across fields and entities consistent > with national needs and taking into account the state of science and > technology, both the new opportunities and the problems that arise. > > Excerpt from report language accompanying Public Law 103-733 > > - The [Senate Appropriations] Committee is concerned that at a time when > there is such opportunity to understand and cure disease, funding for > health research supported by NIH in the next fiscal year is held to below > the inflatio n index for medical research due to budget constraints. > Similarly, other Federal research agencies are confronted with constrained > resources resulting from the virtual freeze in discretionary outlays. This > freeze will make decisions over how to best all ocate funding for research > and development in the future all the more difficult as research > opportunities collide with other governmental responsibilities required for > preserving, protecting the health, safety and economic security of our > citizen [sic]. These realities have compelled the Committee to consider the > composition of the overall Federal Government research and development > budget, which currently totals more than $70,000,000,000 a year. In > particular, the Committee is concerned whether that re search budget is > designed to meet new national security concerns, military, economic, and > health, that confront our Nation in a post-cold war world. The Committee is > concerned, for example, that medical research is not at its optimal level > of priority an d support relative to its importance to national security. > "Because of these new circumstances, the Committee has provided [$750,000] > within the Office of the Director [of NIH] to commission a study by the > National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The study > should consider the criteria that sho uld be used in judging the > appropriate allocation of funds to research and development activities, the > appropriate balance among different type of institutions that conduct such > research, and the means of assuring continued objectivity in the allocation > process. The academies and Institute should consult with the Office of > Science and Technology Policy in planning the framework for the report. The > academies and the Institute should submit the report to both the House and > Senate Appropriations Committees by December 31, 1995." > > Outreach Efforts > > The Committee has been asked to "offer a fresh look at the question of > research priorities." The first step toward this goal is to gain a sense of > why science and technology are valuable and how they relate to one another. > Therefore, the Committee has planned a significant outreach effort to help > frame its observations and recommendations. There will be a systematic > attempt to gather views from the broad range of interests, including > efforts within the Academy Complex, scientific and technical societies, > trade associations, and the like. To date, the Committee has circulated a > request to scientific and technical societies and associations requesting > observations about or examples from their specific fields that address the > following questions: What is the most useful thing this committee could say > about the criteria the federal agencies and congressional appropriations > committees should use when deciding to fund R&D? > > If necessary, what is the best way to decide the allocation of flat federal > R&D funds across areas deserving support? In what ways could the nation > improve the way it allocates R&D funding and uses any results that emerge? > How can the government evaluate the quality of the R&D outcomes that result > from its investments? If you would like to supply a few observations or > examples concerning these questions, please send an e-mail to > r-dstudy@nas.edu. The Committee will also host regional sessions to discuss > the study and its progress, as well as solicit comments from the scientific > community. The first session was held at Stanford University in California > on February 21st. Another session will be hosted by Marye Anne Fox and > David Auston at the University of Texas at Austin on April 7th. To continue > this dialogue, the Committee will take advantage of previously scheduled > meetings, such as the American Association of the Advancement of Science > Annual Meeting, the Sigma Xi Forum, and the Annual Meetings of the National > Academies of Science and Engineering. The April 7th Outreach Session will > be held at the University of Texas at Austin in the Main Dining Room, > located in the Thompson Center. It will be held from 4:00-6:00 pm. If you > would like more information on this session, please contact > r-dstudy@nas.edu. > > Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development > National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of > Medicine National Research Council Committee on Criteria for Federal > Support of Research and Development Membership List ( All terms expire > February 29, 1996 ) > > Frank Press, Chair Senior Fellow Carnegie Institution of Washington > > Lew Allen, Jr. Chairman The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. > > David H. Auston Provost Rice University > > Forest Baskett Senior Vice President, Research & > Development and Chief Technology Officer Silicon Graphics Computer Systems > > Barry R. Bloom Professor of Microbiology & Immunology Albert Einstein > College of Medicine > > Daniel J. Evans Chairman Daniel J. Evans & Associates > > Baruch Fischhoff Professor of Social & Decision Sciences Professor of > Engineering & Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University > > Marye Anne Fox Vice President for Research University of Texas > > Shirley A. Jackson Professor of Physics Rutgers University > > Richard J. Mahoney Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Monsanto Company > > Steven L. McKnight Research Director Tularik, Inc. > > Marcia K. McNutt Griswold Professor of Geophysics Massachusetts Institute > of Technology > > Paul M. Romer Professor of Economics University of California at Berkeley > > Luis Sequeira Professor of Plant Pathology University of Wisconsin > > Harold T. Shapiro President Princeton University > > H. Guyford Stever Trustee and Science Advisor > > John P. White Director for the Center of Business and Government John F. > Kennedy School of Government Harvard University > > NRC Staff > Norman Metzger, Study Director > Robert Cook-Deegan, Senior Program Officer > Julie Esanu, Research Assistant Danielle Dehmler, Project Assistant > > > EOF > > ******************************* > > Warren T. Spaeth, Jr. > Program Associate, Process Research Working Group > Office of the USGCRP > 300 D Street, S.W., Suite 840 > Washington, DC 20024, USA > PHONE: (202) 651-8251 FAX: (202) 554-6715 > e-mail: wspaeth@usgcrp.gov > ******************************* > > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Apr 13 22:46:25 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14332; Thu, 13 Apr 95 22:46:24 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16905; 13 Apr 95 22:46 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13441; Thu, 13 Apr 95 19:44:05 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26144; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 20:42:27 -0600 Message-Id: <9504140242.AA26144@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 20:42:27 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi congress activity Status: OR Cabinet-level Council Presents Strategic Plans for Science & Technology FYI No. 54, April 12, 1995 One of the initiatives announced by President Clinton early in his presidency, but only now underway, is an "across-the-board review of federal spending on research and development." This review is being conducted by nine committees of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), a cabinet-level council chaired by President Clinton. The purpose of the Council is to integrate the Administration's science and technology (S&T) policy across the federal government. It has been described by Administration officials as a "virtual department of science." The thrust of the review effort is to examine the federal S&T portfolio in light of current budget constraints and global competition, and determine how to achieve the most effective and efficient policies for each area of investment. The separate areas being examined are: Fundamental Science; International Science, Engineering, and Technology; Health, Safety and Food; Environment and Natural Resources; Education and Training; Information and Communication; Civilian Industrial Technology; Transportation R&D; and National Security. The nine committees have each prepared a strategic planning document. In his transmittal letter with the plans, Presidential Science Advisor John Gibbons states that the documents "provide a new and unique vehicle for discussing the appropriate focus of federal research efforts as well as planning for future endeavors." He cautions, however, that "these Plans are not an end unto themselves, but rather a means to achieve national goals." For example, the Committee on Fundamental Science (CFS) 18-page plan describes the committee's role as "establishing a government-wide mission for and approach to fundamental science; and developing a cross-agency strategy for dealing with foundational issues that affect the broad research and development enterprise,... within the context of agency missions and broad administration priorities." Noting that it is no longer efficient for federal agencies to set their priorities independently, the Committee "is committed to providing" the framework and rationale for priority decision-making among research programs. The strategic plans can be obtained via the OSTP World Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OSTP.html In countering the quest of some Republicans for a Department of Science, the Administration has claimed that the NSTC represents a "virtual department" that can coordinate federal S&T efforts without changing the existing agency structure. Given the traditional difficulties of inter-governmental coordination, and the early stage of NSTC efforts, it remains to be seen how successful this argument will be. UPDATE TO FYI #52: PCAST notes that Norman Augustine will not serve on the Fusion Working Group. Diana MacArthur of Dynamac Corporation will be joining this group. The panel will "identify budgetary requirements and policy and technology tradeoffs for different options in structuring [DOE's] magnetic fusion energy program. These options include whether and when the United States should commit itself to constructing major new facilities for fusion energy development." ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Apr 13 22:46:53 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14338; Thu, 13 Apr 95 22:46:50 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17046; 13 Apr 95 22:46 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13437; Thu, 13 Apr 95 19:43:32 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26128; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 20:41:54 -0600 Message-Id: <9504140241.AA26128@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 20:41:54 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi congress activity8 Status: OR House Science Committee Chairman Walker Looks Ahead FYI No. 53, April 11, 1995 As the first one hundred days of the 104th Congress concluded, House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) held a half-hour briefing to both look back and ahead. Judging from the chairman's remarks, the next few months are going to be very significant for the science community. When Congress reconvenes it will start work on legislation funding all government operations. In the past, authorizing committees such as the House Science Committee played a secondary role in this process. That should change, Walker said, under a new plan advanced by the House leadership. Under this plan, the House Budget Committee will give the Science Committee a "budget," which Walker will divide among the four subcommittees. The subcommittees will then divide their share between the agencies and programs under their jurisdiction by passing authorization bills. These bills will set program guidelines and contain spending caps. Authorizing bills will be voted on separately by the House, or may be combined into one all-inclusive bill. Walker has talked to Rep. George Brown (D-CA) and the Administration about this approach, and said, "I think they will be supportive." This process is to occur in May so as to work in concert with the appropriations process, which provides actual funding. The dual track approach is going to have a varying effect on science and technology programs. Walker said that the Budget Committee is unlikely to look with favor on the Advanced Technology Program, and so would not include provision for it in the Science Committee's budget. If the Technology Subcommittee authorizes ATP, there will be no recourse but to shift money from something else under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. Walker was asked about the National Science Foundation's FY 1996 budget, and while saying that he was favorably inclined towards its support of basic science, said, "I'm not going to get into specifics." Walker intends to move a separate authorization bill for the space station providing $2.1 billion for each of the next six years through its completion. This multi-year legislation will "ensure that the resources can be obtained," and provide a level of confidence to the appropriations committees, industry, and international partners. When asked to predict the bill's success, Walker said, "we feel pretty good about the ability to move it." Also discussed was the formation of a new Department of Science encompassing NSF, NASA, portions of DOE, NIST, and other science-related agencies (although not DOD R&D or NIH.) Walker said impetus for this new department would be "if the Budget Committee decides this is one of the ways we can deal with the elimination of other agencies," such as DOE and Commerce. Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-OH) reportedly strongly favors this approach. House Science Committee hearings would be held about the formation of a Department of Science, Walker added. Walker called "absurd" speculation that science funding will be heavily cut, saying he would use his influence "to see that science is a winner in all categories." Yet, the science budget will, he admitted, be below this year's spending. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Apr 13 22:48:28 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14347; Thu, 13 Apr 95 22:48:27 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17326; 13 Apr 95 22:48 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13427; Thu, 13 Apr 95 19:42:29 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26103; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 20:40:51 -0600 Message-Id: <9504140240.AA26103@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 20:40:51 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Status: OR NASA Praised by Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee FYI No. 50, April 6, 1995 "Perhaps no agency, more than NASA, has confronted the reality of the austere budget environment. Over the last few years, NASA has transformed itself from an agency that had assumed large annual budget increases, to one that now assumes a flat to negative funding horizon. I applaud the agency for getting out front of this dilemma..." -- Sen. Christopher Bond With these words of praise, chairman Christopher Bond (R-MO) of the Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee opened an April 5 hearing on NASA's FY 1996 budget request. Bond is a "strong supporter for NASA's efforts," as were the other subcommittee members present: Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Robert Bennett (R-UT). NASA is requesting $14.26 billion, a decrease of $203.7 million from current-year spending. It has been asked by the Administration to take a cut of $5 billion from its expected budget profile over the next five years. Daniel Goldin, the agency's administrator, reported that five separate reviews had taken or were taking place on different aspects of the space agency's activities. By mid-May, Goldin expects to have an initial assessment on whether or not the agency could achieve the five-year reduction through cuts in infrastructure alone. If not, he promised to come back to the subcommittee with NASA's priorities for program cuts. Bond concurred with Mikulski when she urged that NASA's analysis be "done in time to give guidance to the House and, certainly, to the Senate." If the analyses were not available in time to mark up the subcommittee's bill, she warned, "we will move without them." Shelby raised concerns about how NASA's field centers would fare under the downsizing, especially Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state. Goldin was "cautiously optimistic" about preserving the primary centers, although he was doubtful that they could all be cut evenly. "Survival of a center is not the issue," he declared. It is "survival of the American economy." Mikulski described NASA as part of the nation's effort to "create wealth and jobs," rather than just redistribute them. Jobs, she said, are "what people are looking for from NASA." She then questioned the Administration's policy of "fencing off" the space station budget from any of the reductions. Goldin praised having a stable station budget as "the single biggest, most important characteristic" in the program's progress, adding that "to change the funding at this point could be its demise." Mikulski cautioned that singling it out "makes it a very clear target." Goldin vowed, "Somehow, some way, no matter what happens...this station is going to be built." Bond made no mention of decreasing the NASA budget further; he said the agency had "given at the office," and made greater reductions than he would have asked for. "We appreciate what you've done," he assured Goldin. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Apr 13 22:48:39 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14351; Thu, 13 Apr 95 22:48:36 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17334; 13 Apr 95 22:48 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13428; Thu, 13 Apr 95 19:42:58 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26109; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 20:41:20 -0600 Message-Id: <9504140241.AA26109@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 20:41:20 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi congress activity Status: OR Foster Task Force Report on NASA Laboratories FYI No. 51, April 7, 1995 During his presentation to PCAST members last week, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin gave his strong endorsement to the just-released report of the NASA Federal Laboratory Review Task Force. Twenty-six people participated in this task force, chaired by Dr. John S. Foster. Foster's cover letter accompanying this 95-page report summarizes the task force's findings: "In view of the austere budget realities, it is even more important that an aggressive effort must be undertaken to create a lean organization from top to bottom. We propose that Headquarters define its expectations of the Centers so that it can reduce its staff, delegate performance to the Centers, and cease detailed management. Center missions should be narrowed to focus on those fundamental areas of expertise which are critically necessary for NASA's future. Duplicative capabilities that permit each Center to function independently of the others should be deleted." Research and development programs at ten NASA Centers were reviewed in the context of the agency's five Strategic Enterprises: Aeronautics, Human Exploration and Development of Space, Mission to Planet Earth, Scientific Research, and Space Technology. The task force does not recommend that any center should be closed, although it acknowledges "perhaps some will be closed." The task force instead focuses on preservation of NASA's critical programs, and reducing costs by quickly downsizing. The report provides brief descriptions of current conditions across the centers, as well as for each of the Strategic Enterprises. Over-all recommendations are made, in areas such as narrowing the breadth of Center missions, reducing redundant capabilities, developing metrics, strengthening technology transfer, privatizing as appropriate, and reducing audits. Other sections cover specific findings and recommendations for each of the five Strategic Enterprises. The section on scientific research is six pages long (life and microgravity sciences are included in another enterprise; Mission to Planet Earth is a separate enterprise.) The task force found fragmentation of scientific research within NASA. It recommends continued work on astrophysics, space physics, and fundamental earth science at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Goddard Space Flight Center. Research at other NASA Centers should be evaluated for transfer or closure. A total of eleven recommendations are made in this section, most of which are administrative or managerial. Goldin's PCAST presentation left little doubt that he supports the general findings of the report. He acknowledges that to implement these changes he must traverse some "thin ice" by convincing people that NASA's vitality should not be measured by the size of its budget or number of its employees. This report is not available over the Internet. To obtain a free printed copy, write to NASA Headquarters; Washington, D.C. 20546; Attn: News Room. ############### From mallen@nsf.gov Fri Apr 14 15:46:31 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17442; Fri, 14 Apr 95 15:46:29 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24636; 14 Apr 95 15:46 EDT Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17260; Fri, 14 Apr 95 12:40:57 PDT Received: from [128.150.134.18] (bio0009.bio.nsf.gov) by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA21863 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 14 Apr 1995 15:39:47 -0400 X-Sender: mallen@popsrvr.nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 15:39:20 -0500 To: pi@lternet.edu From: Mike Allen Subject: NRC COMMISSIONED TO STUDY GOVT. R&D ALLOCATION Status: OR >Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 14:17:15 EST >From: jroskosk@nsf.gov >To: debpo@nsf.gov >Subject: NRC COMMISSIONED TO STUDY GOVT. R&D ALLOCATION > > DEBers: Please note the lack of the word "ENVIRONMENT" in > any of the national needs lists as well as the lack of > non-medical type biologists on the study committee. I > suggest you pass this e-mail along to all lists and bulletin > boards that you think might be interested. > > Joann > > >TO ALL: > >Came across the following report dealing with the fact the NRC has been >commissioned by Congress to do a study on, ".. "the criteria that should be >used in judging the appropriate allocation of funds to research and >development activities, the appropriate balance among different types of >institutions that conduct such research, and the means of assuring >continued objectivity in the allocation process." The language for this >study was attached to a report from the Senate Appropriations Committee on >the funding of NIH (National Institutes of Health), but in effect covers >all of the federal R&D research budget effort. The Report is due 31 >December 1995. > >How this report might be used by the Republican majority in Congress is an >interesting item to ponder? > >FYI, Warren > >********************************************************* > >Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development >National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of >Medicine National Research Council Study on the Criteria for Federal >Support of Research and Development >********************************************************* > >In a report accompanying funding for the National Institutes of Health for >Fiscal Year 1995, the Senate Appropriations Committee mandated a study from >the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. > >The study is to address "the criteria that should be used in judging the >appropriate allocation of funds to research and development activities, the >appropriate balance among different types of institutions that conduct such >research, and the means of assuring continued objectivity in the allocation >process." > >The study originated from the Committee's concern "that at a time when >there is much opportunity to understand and cure disease, funding for >health research supported by NIH in the next fiscal year is held to below >the inflation rate for medical research due to budget constraints. > >Similarly, other Federal research agencies are confronted with constrained >resources resulting from the virtual freeze in discretionary outlays." > >The Academy has responded to the request by appointing a study committee, >chaired by Frank Press, to prepare a report to be delivered to the Congress >and the sponsors by December 31, 1995. The study will be conducted as an >activity of the entire Academy Complex (the National Academy of Sciences, >the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the >National Research Council) in consultation with the Office of Science and >Technology Policy. The study will look at the process for changing federal >R&D allocations in light of dynamic global conditions, rapid developments >in science and technology, shifts in national needs, and expectations of >constrained overall real growth in budgets. The study will be staffed by >Norman Metzger (study director), Robert Cook-Deegan, Julie Esanu, and >Danielle Dehmler. The report will assess funding for R&D across the federal >government, focusing on criteria and processes. It will not recommend which >areas deserve more funding relative to others, but will outline a rational >procedure for allocation of resources across fields and entities consistent >with national needs and taking into account the state of science and >technology, both the new opportunities and the problems that arise. > >Excerpt from report language accompanying Public Law 103-733 > > - The [Senate Appropriations] Committee is concerned that at a time when >there is such opportunity to understand and cure disease, funding for >health research supported by NIH in the next fiscal year is held to below >the inflatio n index for medical research due to budget constraints. >Similarly, other Federal research agencies are confronted with constrained >resources resulting from the virtual freeze in discretionary outlays. This >freeze will make decisions over how to best all ocate funding for research >and development in the future all the more difficult as research >opportunities collide with other governmental responsibilities required for >preserving, protecting the health, safety and economic security of our >citizen [sic]. These realities have compelled the Committee to consider the >composition of the overall Federal Government research and development >budget, which currently totals more than $70,000,000,000 a year. In >particular, the Committee is concerned whether that re search budget is >designed to meet new national security concerns, military, economic, and >health, that confront our Nation in a post-cold war world. The Committee is >concerned, for example, that medical research is not at its optimal level >of priority an d support relative to its importance to national security. >"Because of these new circumstances, the Committee has provided [$750,000] >within the Office of the Director [of NIH] to commission a study by the >National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The study >should consider the criteria that sho uld be used in judging the >appropriate allocation of funds to research and development activities, the >appropriate balance among different type of institutions that conduct such >research, and the means of assuring continued objectivity in the allocation >process. The academies and Institute should consult with the Office of >Science and Technology Policy in planning the framework for the report. The >academies and the Institute should submit the report to both the House and >Senate Appropriations Committees by December 31, 1995." > >Outreach Efforts > >The Committee has been asked to "offer a fresh look at the question of >research priorities." The first step toward this goal is to gain a sense of >why science and technology are valuable and how they relate to one another. >Therefore, the Committee has planned a significant outreach effort to help >frame its observations and recommendations. There will be a systematic >attempt to gather views from the broad range of interests, including >efforts within the Academy Complex, scientific and technical societies, >trade associations, and the like. To date, the Committee has circulated a >request to scientific and technical societies and associations requesting >observations about or examples from their specific fields that address the >following questions: What is the most useful thing this committee could say >about the criteria the federal agencies and congressional appropriations >committees should use when deciding to fund R&D? > >If necessary, what is the best way to decide the allocation of flat federal >R&D funds across areas deserving support? In what ways could the nation >improve the way it allocates R&D funding and uses any results that emerge? >How can the government evaluate the quality of the R&D outcomes that result >from its investments? If you would like to supply a few observations or >examples concerning these questions, please send an e-mail to >r-dstudy@nas.edu. The Committee will also host regional sessions to discuss >the study and its progress, as well as solicit comments from the scientific >community. The first session was held at Stanford University in California >on February 21st. Another session will be hosted by Marye Anne Fox and >David Auston at the University of Texas at Austin on April 7th. To continue >this dialogue, the Committee will take advantage of previously scheduled >meetings, such as the American Association of the Advancement of Science >Annual Meeting, the Sigma Xi Forum, and the Annual Meetings of the National >Academies of Science and Engineering. The April 7th Outreach Session will >be held at the University of Texas at Austin in the Main Dining Room, >located in the Thompson Center. It will be held from 4:00-6:00 pm. If you >would like more information on this session, please contact >r-dstudy@nas.edu. > >Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development >National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of >Medicine National Research Council Committee on Criteria for Federal >Support of Research and Development Membership List ( All terms expire >February 29, 1996 ) > >Frank Press, Chair Senior Fellow Carnegie Institution of Washington > >Lew Allen, Jr. Chairman The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. > >David H. Auston Provost Rice University > >Forest Baskett Senior Vice President, Research & >Development and Chief Technology Officer Silicon Graphics Computer Systems > >Barry R. Bloom Professor of Microbiology & Immunology Albert Einstein >College of Medicine > >Daniel J. Evans Chairman Daniel J. Evans & Associates > >Baruch Fischhoff Professor of Social & Decision Sciences Professor of >Engineering & Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University > >Marye Anne Fox Vice President for Research University of Texas > >Shirley A. Jackson Professor of Physics Rutgers University > >Richard J. Mahoney Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Monsanto Company > >Steven L. McKnight Research Director Tularik, Inc. > >Marcia K. McNutt Griswold Professor of Geophysics Massachusetts Institute >of Technology > >Paul M. Romer Professor of Economics University of California at Berkeley > >Luis Sequeira Professor of Plant Pathology University of Wisconsin > >Harold T. Shapiro President Princeton University > >H. Guyford Stever Trustee and Science Advisor > >John P. White Director for the Center of Business and Government John F. >Kennedy School of Government Harvard University > >NRC Staff >Norman Metzger, Study Director >Robert Cook-Deegan, Senior Program Officer >Julie Esanu, Research Assistant Danielle Dehmler, Project Assistant > > >EOF > >******************************* > >Warren T. Spaeth, Jr. >Program Associate, Process Research Working Group >Office of the USGCRP >300 D Street, S.W., Suite 840 >Washington, DC 20024, USA >PHONE: (202) 651-8251 FAX: (202) 554-6715 >e-mail: wspaeth@usgcrp.gov >******************************* > From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Fri Apr 14 16:41:00 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17778; Fri, 14 Apr 95 16:40:59 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09521; 14 Apr 95 16:40 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17595; Fri, 14 Apr 95 13:40:42 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA12237; Fri, 14 Apr 95 14:39:04 MDT Message-Id: <9504142039.AA12237@ladrones.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 14:39:03 -0600 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: CC agenda Cc: jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Status: OR Here is the final agenda for our CC meeting next week. Agenda Coordinating Committee meeting April 20, 21, 1995 Sunset Beach Hotel Wednesday Evening, April 20 5:00 PM Social, Sunset Beach Hotel 7:00 PM LMER-LTER workshop (Hayden) other workshops, priority setting (Gosz) 8:00 PM Technology Committee Status (Bowser) Meta Access/Accession Project (Bledsoe) EMAP (EPA) funding opportunities (Hayden/Gosz) 9:00 PM continue social Thursday, April 21 8:30 AM NSF Report on LTER status (Allen) 9:00 AM Network Office and related activities (CC members) -LTER CC position on site submissions -criteria for Network Office competition -prioritization of Network Office work 10:30 AM break 10:45 AM Cont. Discussion of Network Office priorities 11:15 AM Data Managers Conference Report (Briggs) -recommendations -next workshop 11:45 AM Status of PI's online data sets, gopher, web (CC members) 12:15 lunch 1:15 PM Publications Committee report on Synthesis (Hayden) -recommendations 1:45 PM Assessment of 5 core areas discussion (Gross) 2:30 PM LTER affiliate criteria (Waide) 3:15 PM break 3:30 PM ILTER strategy -Magnitude of effort (Gosz) -affiliate criteria (Franklin, Waide) -Network Office Clearinghouse (Gosz, Vande Castle) -ILTER training, connectivity demos (Nottrott) 4:30 PM Site Bites (CC members) From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Apr 14 17:39:54 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17999; Fri, 14 Apr 95 17:39:53 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22687; 14 Apr 95 17:39 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18054; Fri, 14 Apr 95 14:39:53 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04071; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 15:38:15 -0600 Message-Id: <9504142138.AA04071@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 14 Apr 95 15:38:14 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi congress activity Status: OR > From whatsnew@aps.org Fri Apr 14 15:12:15 1995 > Received: by aps.org (5.65/1.35) > id AA17961; Fri, 14 Apr 95 17:11:49 -0400 > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 95 17:11:49 -0400 > From: whatsnew@aps.org (What's New) > Message-Id: <9504142111.AA17961@aps.org> > To: jgosz > Subject: What's New for Apr 14, 1995 > > WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park Friday, 14 Apr 95 Washington, DC > > 1. GIBBONS LASHES OUT AT CRITICS OF CLINTON TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS! > The annual AAAS Policy Colloquium is usually a pretty staid sort > of affair, and White House Science Advisor John Gibbons is not > known as a fiery orator, but Gibbons slammed the Republicans in a > keynote address on Wednesday. The $200B deficit projected in the > FY 96 Clinton budget, he said, amounts to the annual interest on > the debt "callously racked up" in the Reagan-Bush years. Citing > the recent Critical Technologies Report (WN 24 Mar 95), Gibbons > accused "extremists in Congress" of a "ruthless attack on this > nation's future" by cutting Administration technology initiatives > such as the Advanced Technology Program, Technology Reinvestment > Project and the Clean Car. He went on to declare that "this > Administration unequivocally opposes the creation of a Department > of Science." He then aimed his cannon at the Contract, describing > "dog-tired Members marching lockstep with their eyes fixed only > on the end of the 100 days." The Contract, he said, "never even > mentions the word `environment'....Congress seems bent on gutting > research on energy efficiency and sources of renewable energy." > > 2. WITH CONGRESS OFF ON SPRING BREAK, ROSCOE BARTLETT RESPONDS! > A PhD scientist, the second-term Maryland Republican is on the > House Science Committee. With Committee leaders unavailable, > Bartlett, whose district is near Washington, gave the other side. > The battle lines were clearly drawn: "The major challenge facing > the 104th Congress is to...begin rejecting policies that tie us > to the outmoded status quo." What policies? "Budget realities > dictate that basic research be reemphasized. We neither have the > luxury, nor is it a wise use of resources, to continue steering > taxpayer dollars in the direction of applied research which can > and should be market-driven and conducted by the private sector." > > 3. THE DIRECTOR OF ENERGY RESEARCH NAMES HER TOP THREE PRIORITIES > Speaking today at the AAAS Colloquium, Martha Krebs revealed her > top priorities for FY 96: on top was the facilities utilization > initiative (WN 10 Feb 95), followed by the "Drell bump" for High > Energy Physics (WN 28 Jan 94) and the Clean Car Initiative. > > 4. AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY WANTS CHANGES IN SMITHSONIAN EXHIBIT > One year after the opening of "Science in American Life," the ACS > has officially expressed its dissatisfaction with the exhibit for > which it paid $5.3M. A letter from the Chairman of the ACS Board > of Directors to the Secretary of the Smithsonian complains of the > arrogance and high-handedness of museum personnel during four > years of preparation. The finished product, the letter says, was > strongly biased against science and damaged the reputation of the > ACS. The complaints echoed those raised by the American Physical > Society (WN 18 Nov 95), but the letter stresses that the American > Chemical Society put up the money for the exhibit, and it is the > ACS that should be consulted about any changes (24 Feb 95). > > THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's > and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) > From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Fri Apr 14 18:21:22 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18129; Fri, 14 Apr 95 18:21:21 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29132; 14 Apr 95 18:21 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18324; Fri, 14 Apr 95 15:16:54 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA12372; Fri, 14 Apr 95 16:15:14 MDT Message-Id: <9504142215.AA12372@ladrones.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 16:15:13 -0600 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Network Office Priority Tasks Cc: jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Status: OR The following represents the major tasks to be performed by the Network Office during the period of the 2 year award recently received. These tasks will be reviewed by the CC at the meeting relative to the future role of the office, priority setting for Office activities and to provide input to NSF relative to the upcoming competition for the Network Office. CC members should bring this list to the meeting. NETWORK OFFICE PRIORITY TASKS (not in priority order) and contributing personnel [ ] designates contact person U.S. LTER Network Activities: -------------------------------- Develop plans, agendas, logistics for [Jim], Jerry, John, Rudolf LTER workshops, All Scientist Adrienne, Lynne, Caroline meetings Janis (NM) Develop Exec. & Coordinating Comm. meetings, [Jim], Jerry, Adrienne, Lynne, agenda, and logistics Janis (NM) Minutes for Exec. & Coordinating meetings [John], Stephanie Ex Officio participation on Committees Caroline, John, Jerry, Jim, (to assist committee chair) Rudolf, Stephanie Data Managers Workshops, Reports [Rudolf] (with DMs) Meta Data Standards [Rudolf], Harvey, Caroline (with DMs) Bibliographic Database (LTER) Harvey, [Caroline] Accession Numbers for LTER Harvey, [Caroline] GIS/RM in LTER [John], Greg LTER Grad/Undergrad student organizations [Josh], Caroline International LTER Activities: --------------------------------- Develop plans, agendas, logistics for [Jerry], Jim, Rudolf, John ILTER workshops, steering comm. Adrienne, Lynne, Janis (NM) Minutes for ILTER Steering Comm. minutes [John], Jerry, Jim International scientist exchanges, site [Jim], Jerry, John, Rudolf visits International Training/Connectivity [Rudolf], John, Ray, PC U.S., International Communication: --------------------------------- ILTER server acquired/installed/maintained [Rudolf], John, Ray, PC Develop/maintain Connectivity Kit [Rudolf], John, Ray LTER Home Page, gopher server [Stephanie], Rudolf, John Ray, Lynne, PC ILTER Home Page [Rudolf], John, Ray LTER personnel/site directory [Stephanie], Lynne, Adrienne, Ray, Rudolf, PC ILTER site directory (to be developed) [Stephanie], Rudolf, Lynne, John LTER Newsletter, workshop, other publications [Stephanie], Lynne Network Office Management: ------------------------- Staff Supervision [Jerry], Jim, John Accounting, purchasing, etc. [Adrienne], Lynne, Janis (NM) Network Office personnel: ------------------------ Univ. of Washington: Jerry Franklin John Vande Castle Rudolf Nottrott Stephanie Martin Adrienne Whitner Ray Bero Lynne Hendrix Greg Stought Josh Greenberg PC (new hire with expertise on PC systems) Univ. of New Mexico: Jim Gosz Janis Shuster U.C. Davis: Caroline Bledsoe Harvey Chinn From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Apr 21 23:52:16 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05004; Fri, 21 Apr 95 23:52:15 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10775; 21 Apr 95 23:52 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03295; Fri, 21 Apr 95 20:51:34 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA23957; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 21:49:58 -0600 Message-Id: <9504220349.AA23957@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 21:49:58 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Gibbons speech on research funding Status: OR Gibbons Repudiates Republican Policies; Department of Science FYI No. 55, April 20, 1995 The partisan controversy over setting science and technology policy in tight fiscal times welled up at the April 12-14 Colloquium on Science and Technology, sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Presidential Science Advisor John Gibbons, the keynote speaker, abandoned his usual equable demeanor to vigorously defend the Administration's science policies and blast Republican plans to cut science and technology programs. Excerpts from his speech are highlighted below. "//" indicates that paragraphs have been combined for brevity. "As I stand here today,...I can't help but think a year ahead to what next year's keynote speaker will be saying about the 1995 year-in-science. Will that speaker be able to say that 1995 was the year America ceded leadership in science and technology to foreign competitors, or that America retained and bolstered its lead?...// These are not idle questions. What has played out over the past 100 days in Congress for those who follow science policy is a clear dichotomy between some in Congress who desire to cut government at any cost, versus the Administration's commitment to cutting the deficit while boosting overall productivity and investing in the future." "...despite [proposed] deep cuts in virtually every other domestic discretionary account, research funding actually has risen modestly -- a signal of the Administration's commitment to science and technology as the engine of growth in jobs, the economy, and our quality of life. And basic research received the greatest percentage increase....// In this middle of the fiscal pain, the Administration has held fast to the principle of wise investment in science and technology - not because it's a good thing politically,...but because it's important and the President and Vice President believe in it. "This kind of priority-setting - difficult as it is - represents the actions of deliberate and dedicated government, husbanding and making careful, multiple use of the resources for the future of our children and our grandchildren....// Crafting such a vision requires great care. It cannot be done by a Congress motivated solely by the desire to move dollar signs from one side of the ledger to another. It cannot be done in 100 days, or in 200 days, for that matter. It cannot be done by simple fiat or decree. It cannot be done by a Congress so weary it can't see straight; so driven that it doesn't even have time to read the material on which it is about to vote. "It must not be done with a meat ax when the precision of a scalpel is necessary.// Yet the spectre of finishing the first session of the 104th Congress with S&T resources slashed by a meat ax is a real one. In their rush to cut government,...some Members have launched a wholesale attack on anything that isn't nailed to the table -- including R&D, and especially the `D' in R&D.// The cuts we've seen already are nothing compared to what they are thinking about doing: The Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. [John] Kasich [R-Ohio], recently released an `illustrative list' of cuts for next year's budget, in which the toll for science and technology was a whopping $2.5 billion. Over the next five years, it's targeting $13 billion." "Now, I don't want to raise the false expectation that we in the Administration will be able to completely insulate science and technology from the real fiscal pressures that will drive the next decade of budget policy.... There will be cuts; R&D will have to take some of them. But the cuts should be judicious and managed, not across-the-board salvos that wreak havoc throughout the research enterprise.// My hope is that wise heads in Congress will intervene.... But my fear is that history will record that extremists in Congress prevailed." "One of their preeminent proposals is the creation of a Department of Science....// Let me be very clear about one thing -- this Administration unequivocally opposes the creation of a Department of Science of the kind now being discussed in Congress....// ...the genius of U.S. science policy to date has been its recognition that pluralism of support and diversity of performers allows the crucial freedom of enquiry that unleashes the creative spirit of our world-class researchers and their students. The proposal to create a Department of Science flies in the face of this pluralism by instituting a command-and-control model of rigid bureaucracy. "We are all in favor of making science more responsive to the needs of the Nation. But we believe the worst possible thing you can do to policy and associated missions is to divorce them from a science base.... Federal agencies depend on the feedback from research that is inextricably linked to their mission. There is no productive way to unhitch science and policy. Nor should we. The result will be poor science conducted in a vacuum and even poorer policy." "There is a good way to go about reform, and there is a bad way. I venture to say that each of you has been trained in the good way -- experiment, observe, and test your observations before implementing innovation across the system.// Is this the process that we've seen at work in the Congress over the past 100 days? It is not. Rather, we have seen dog-tired Members marching lockstep ahead with their eyes fixed only on the end of the 100 Days. Many of the changes wrought by the House were passed without the benefit of a single hearing, or at best with a minimal legislative record....// There is no hard evidence and there are no compelling data to support abandoning our historic commitment to science and technology. Rather, at times this Congress seems to run screaming from anything that looks like research or credible data...even opting to eliminate their only bipartisan and bicameral resource for S&T analysis, the Office of Technology Assessment." "Science and technology programs in the 104th Congress are the legislative equivalents of endangered species. In Congress' rush to slash government and lower taxes, we are in danger of losing the very excellence in technology that has made our country the envy of the world." ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Apr 21 23:53:11 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05009; Fri, 21 Apr 95 23:53:10 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10923; 21 Apr 95 23:53 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03301; Fri, 21 Apr 95 20:51:59 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA23969; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 21:50:22 -0600 Message-Id: <9504220350.AA23969@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 21:50:22 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi funding cuts in Commerce Status: OR Commerce Dept. Funding Cut; Additional Cuts Loom in the Future FYI No. 56, April 21, 1995 President Clinton has signed into law a bill slicing $90 million in current year funding from the Department of Commerce's Advanced Technology Program. Funding for this program drops by 21% from $430.7 million to $340.7 million. Also contained in this rescission legislation, the savings from which will be used to offset the cost of military peacekeeping operations, was a $300 million reduction (or 68%) in funding for DOD's Technology Reinvestment Project, as well as cuts in the National Information Infrastructure grants program. Commenting on these cuts Clinton said, "Regrettably, rescissions will reduce some of my Administration's technology priorities, which serve as a foundation for America's future competitiveness and national security. Nevertheless, reductions in this Act are less than those in earlier version of the bill." This cut in one of the Commerce Department's highest profile programs may be an indication of what looms in the future for this agency, and for the entire department. On April 6, officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology appeared before Senator Phil Gramm's (R-TX) appropriations subcommittee to present their budget request. Gramm opened the hearing by cautioning that "we are in a very tight budget cycle," a prediction seconded by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) who said, "this subcommittee is going to get a lot less money" in the FY 1996 appropriations process. Undersecretary of Commerce Mary L. Good and NIST Director Arati Prabhaker gave stellar presentations on the Advanced Technology Program, causing Chairman Gramm to say, "I now have totally clear in my mind what you are talking about." His questions about the program were largely philosophical, centering on the proper role of government in research and development. He expressed support for basic research, saying that the role of the federal government in this area is "beyond debate." But in going beyond this stage he asked, "where do you draw the line," and "where does the government role end, and the private sector begin" in the development of technology. It is not, he said, "a clear cut decision." To this Good replied that "we won't survive if somebody does not do the five year stuff, the ten year stuff...I think we have no choice." Gramm ended what was a friendly, fairly brief hearing by warning that the budget process, which starts in May following the return of Congress, is not going to be an easy one. Among the first indications about what lies in store for the Advanced Technology Program, and the Commerce Department itself, may be the House Budget Committee's budget resolution. This resolution charts over-all federal spending, and it is rumored that it will be released around May 10. Also coming into play is a plan being advanced by a House leadership balanced budget task force. House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-NY) will introduce a bill on May 2 that would balance the federal budget by the year 2000 (two years earlier than previously scheduled.) Among this bill's provisions are the elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Education. ############### From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Apr 24 20:14:49 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11479; Mon, 24 Apr 95 20:14:48 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17490; 24 Apr 95 20:14 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17964; Mon, 24 Apr 95 17:13:13 PDT Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 17:13:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Update on the NBS (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This was posted on ESANEWS, the list that posts updates from the headquarters office of the Ecological Society of America. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Update on the National Biological Service On April 19, Ron Pulliam, Director of the National Biological Service, updated representatives of various organizations including, The Nature Conservancy, the Ecological Society of America and the Association of Systematics Collections, on the status of the NBS. Pulliam noted that the House 1995 recissions bill would cut 10% of NBS funding and would require closures and loss of NBS capabilities. The Senate recissions bill, amounting to a 7.5% cut would hurt, but still maintain the integrity of the agency. Gwen Williams Mason, also with NBS, predicted that congressional mark-up of a recission bill would take place sometime after Memorial Day. Pulliam said that he believes significant progress has been made in informing members of Congress about the new agency's mission and importance, but that he is uncertain if the progress is enough to ensure that NBS will survive. He told participants that grassroots efforts would be most beneficial in supporting the agency. Pulliam especially emphasized the benefits of separating science from the regulatory arm of the Interior Department, saying that this arrangement allows for a more long-term view, the ability to be proactive, free access, and better information. Mason noted that members of the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee particularly worth targeting are: Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) Jim Bunn (R-OR) Joseph McDade (R-PA) George Nethercutt (R-WA) Members of the Interior Subcommittee of Senate Appropriations and NBS Facilities particularly worth targeting are: Ted Stevens (R-AK) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Pete Domenici (R-NM) Slade Gorton (R-WA) Connie Mack (R-FL) Conrad Burns (R-MT) Robert Bennett (R-UT) Letters to legislators are most effective when written by individual constituents of a particular representative on a specific issue. Suggested address style is: The Honorable____________ United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative____________ The Honorable____________ United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator__________ Basic points about the NBS include: - The Nation needs sound science to make critical decisions about natural resources. - NBS will help by providing sound, factual, unbiased information, as far in advance as possible. - NBS has no regulatory or resource management responsibilities, so its science will not be influenced by regulatory or management perspectives. - The job of the NBS is simply to provide better information to those who have to make decisions, not to advocate regulatory or management practices. - A single science agency (NBS) is more effective and efficient than several fragmented efforts. - NBS has one of the lowest ratios of administrative costs to actual program expenses within the Department of Interior. - Biological information has enormous economic potential. The US economy has been strengthened by the discovery of new drugs, isolation of genes, reactions, and compounds used in biotechnology, and development of improved and more sustainable agricultural and other practices. Continued progress requires continued inquiry into biology and ecology. Please contact ESA's Public Affairs Office (esahq@esa.org; 202/833-8773) for further information and consider forwarding letters to the ESA Public Affairs Office at 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036. ------------ End Forwarded Message ------------- From jgosz@lternet.washington.edu Tue Apr 25 20:53:24 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16633; Tue, 25 Apr 95 20:53:23 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26852; 25 Apr 95 20:53 EDT Received: from dirt.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26503; Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:51:26 PDT Received: by dirt.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01648; Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:51:06 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:51:06 PDT From: James Gosz Message-Id: <9504260051.AA01648@dirt.lternet.washington.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Senate hearings on S&T programs Status: OR Senate Hearing on S&T Programs; New Presidential Report FYI No. 57, April 24, 1995 A hearing on the Clinton Administration's science and technology programs a few weeks ago highlighted some of the issues Congress will consider as it turns to the FY 1996 budget over the next few months. Helpful in framing the coming debate over the administration's support of science, and particularly technology, is a recently issued document, "Science and Technology, a Report of the President." Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Gibbons and National Science Foundation Director Neal Lane appeared before Senator Conrad Burns (R-Montana) three weeks ago in a hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. This well-attended, but low-key hearing gave Gibbons an opportunity to speak about the high rate of return for investment in science and technology, and to present the "compelling case for the president's position" that is described at greater length in the above-cited report. Lane discussed NSF's strategic plan which has also been released, and which will be covered in a future FYI. Chairman Burns discussed one of the more controversial technology programs, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at the Department of Commerce. "I support the ATP" for start-ups, Burns said, but added that he was surprised at the size of the administration's requested increased for the program (14.0%.) He asked if this could be justified in light of other government programs being cut, and in remarks echoing Senate Appropriations subcommittee chairman Phil Gramm (R-Texas) said it was a "very fine line...where we go and don't go" (see FYI #56.) Gibbons explained the various features of the program to counter the concern that the ATP is industrial policy. Joining in this discussion was Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia) who said that "it worries me greatly" that Congress is arguing about the federal role in science and technology. This is, Rockefeller said, "at the heart of the greatest conflict here in the Commerce Committee." If there was one area that Burns and Rockefeller showed great interest in, and support of, it was NSF's EPSCoR program. A second panel of witnesses testified in support of EPSCoR, and it was evident that both senators, from rural states, were very enthusiastic about the opportunities this program has given their constituents. Coincidental with this hearing was the release of the 40-page document, "Science and Technology, A Report of the President." This is a biennial report required by a 1976 law. "This report describes the actions and plans of the Clinton Administration to harness the power of science and technology," the document declares. It finds that the distinctions between basic and applied science "are blurring" and contends that there is not a linear progression between them. Federal priorities in science and technology (such as health, environmental quality, economic growth, education, etc.) are described. Research on the top quark is one of highlighted areas. This report is available via the OSTP Homepage on the World Wide Web at the following site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OSTP.html ############### From jgosz@lternet.washington.edu Tue Apr 25 20:55:40 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16641; Tue, 25 Apr 95 20:55:39 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27503; 25 Apr 95 20:55 EDT Received: from dirt.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26516; Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:52:46 PDT Received: by dirt.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01657; Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:52:27 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:52:27 PDT From: James Gosz Message-Id: <9504260052.AA01657@dirt.lternet.washington.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi President Technology Report Status: OR New Report Provides Praise But Caution for U.S. Competitive Position FYI No. 58, April 25, 1995 "This is one of the best arguments I have seen for continued Federal support of dual-use technology research and development -- our very economic and security future may depend on it." -- John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released a report last month that the Administration will likely use to argue for support of its cooperative programs with industry. The 197-page "National Critical Technologies Report," the third in a biennial series, reviews the United States' competitive position in seven broad technology categories, and 27 specific technology areas, in comparison with the positions of Japan and the European Community. While the report concludes that the U.S. is either leading or at parity with its competitors in all 27 of the categories identified, it warns that the size of the U.S. lead in many areas is declining. According to John Gibbons, the President's Assistant for Science and Technology and director of OSTP, "This report documents the very tenuous lead we maintain in many of the technologies critical to our military and economic well-being at the very same time that the new Congressional leadership proposes to gut the very core of our strategy to preserve American preeminence in these critical areas. What is also abundantly clear in this report is the degree to which certain key technologies - such as information technology, manufacturing processes, sensor development, and advanced materials - are crucial to both military and economic security..... The next generation of military systems and capabilities requires superior technology in five of seven major technology categories, including 21 of 27 critical areas surveyed by the report." The report was prepared by OSTP with assistance from the Critical Technologies Institute, and reviewed informally by an independent panel of public- and private-sector leaders. The technologies surveyed were identified from various Defense Department documents. The categories and areas examined are: Energy: energy efficiency; storage, conditioning, distribution, and transmission; and improved generation. Environmental Quality: monitoring and assessment; pollution control; and remediation and restoration. Information and Communication: components; communications, computer systems; information management; intelligent complex adaptive systems; sensors; and software and toolkits. Living Systems: biotechnology; medical technology; agriculture and food technology; and human factors. Manufacturing: discrete product manufacturing; continuous materials processing; and micro/nanofabrication and machining. Materials: materials; structures. Transportation: aerodynamics; avionics and controls; propulsion and power; systems integration; and human interface. According to the report, critical technologies fall under the "applied research" and "development" portion of the federal R&D portfolio. The document is intended to identify necessary areas of focus for the federal R&D effort, and to coordinate federal R&D policy with a common set of priorities. A copy of the report can be obtained from RAND (contact: Linda Tanner, (202) 296-5000, x5692.) ############### From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Apr 26 19:22:18 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA20764; Wed, 26 Apr 95 19:22:17 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17399; 26 Apr 95 19:22 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05633; Wed, 26 Apr 95 16:19:00 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 16:19:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: ESA Enviro. Policy Update 4/24/95 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This is the latest Environmental Policy Update from the Ecological Society of America. The ESA issues these updates on a weekly basis on their new list - ESANEWS. If you are interested in subscribing send an e-mail to: listserv@umdd.umd.edu with the message: sub esanews - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Environmental Policy Update, April 18 - 24, 1995 Compiled by the Public Affairs Office of the Ecological Society of America. Sources: Daily Environment Report, Bureau of National Affairs Inc., Washington, DC; Congressional Green Sheets, Environmental & Energy Study Institute, Washington, DC.; The New York Times, New York, NY. ==== PLEASE NOTE: While Congress takes a three week recess, each weekly update will focus on a specific, major environmental policy decision currently facing the Congress. ==== ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The Endangered Species Act (E.S.A.), which passed Congress with bi-partisan support in 1973, has become a hot target for the new Republican-controlled Congress. Many Members of Congress say that the E.S.A. has hurt the economy and cost many jobs. Proponents say that the Act has proven to be a very successful environmental law that has saved many species, including the California Condor and the Bald Eagle. In the next several months, Congress will debate reauthorization of this bill. E.S.A. MORATORIUM Since January, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) has worked to place a moratorium on new listings of threatened and endangered species and ecosystems. S. 503, which would have placed a six-month moratorium on the Act, was killed in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee after Committee Democrats threatened to block another bill until the moratorium was tabled. Soon after, though, Sen. Hutchison successfully attached an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for the Department of Defense Bill, H.R. 889, that rescinded $1.5 million in FY '95 for new listings under E.S.A. This amendment was included in the final version of the bill that President Clinton signed into law April 10. E.S.A. REAUTHORIZATION Although no E.S.A reauthorization bills have been introduced, the Act is expected to undergo major revisions over the next several months. It is expected that most reauthorization proposals will attempt to greatly scale back the power and scope of E.S.A. Many Members of Congress have expressed concern that the current E.S.A. hurts land owners through callous regulations and have said that they would like to see owners compensated for the value of land lost as a result of E.S.A. regulations. House of Representatives The House Resources Committee has set up an Endangered Species Task Force, chaired by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), that has beenconducting field hearings around the country. Critics of the Task Force complain that the witness panels have been strongly biased towards opponents of E.S.A. In March, controversy erupted when a scheduled field hearing, arranged by Task Force Member and E.S.A. proponent Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), was abruptly cancelled. Rep. Gilchrest complained that the hearing was cancelled by Rep. Pombo and Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) because many of the witnesses were supportive of E.S.A. At the end of April, when the remaining hearings are scheduled to conclude, the Committee will begin to draft a reauthorization bill. Senate Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA) has announced that he will soon introduce an E.S.A. reauthorization bill. The proposal, drafted by a group of Washington, DC lawyers representing the mining, timber, ranching, and utility industries, will differ greatly from the original E.S.A. Sen. Gorton's bill would give the authority to decide whether or not a species should be protected to the Secretary of the Department of Interior. The Secretary would have to decide if the survival of a species was worth the loss of a single job. If the Secretary determined that it wasn't, nothing would be done to save the species. It is expected that the bill would also exempt small property owners from most E.S.A. regulations and would provide compensation for lost property value due to regulations. There is also the possibility of a judicial review provision. Sen. Gorton's bill will probably be the most extreme of the expected proposals and most people, including those who are generally opposed to the current E.S.A., feel that the bill will not progress very far. Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is planning to introduce his own, less drastic reauthorization proposal later this year. Clinton Administration -In March, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said that he would like to see changes that would, among other things, exempt small property owners from E.S.A. regulations under certain conditions. Secretary Babbitt did stress, however, that "sound and objective science" must still be the basis of all E.S.A. decisions. -Recently, President Clinton has indicated that he will veto any legislation that undermines existing environmental protection. The President did not mention, though, which specific legislation he would veto. Supreme Court -The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments April 17 in a case concerning whether destroying the habitat of species listed under E.S.A. constitutes "harm" to the animals (Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon). Section 9 of E.S.A. prohibits the taking of a listed species and defines "take" to include, among other things, "harm" to a species. At issue is the validity of a regulation put in place by the Interior Department in 1975 that forbids landowners to "harm" a listed species bymodifying or degrading its habitat in a way that kills or injures wildlife. In March 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the regulation was invalid because E.S.A. used the word "harm" to mean only the direct application of force against the species and not the indirect effects of habitat modifications, such as logging. This case is very important because if the Government loses, there is virtually no chance that Congress will restore the habitat protections. A decision by the Supreme Court is not expected until this summer. =========================================================== Send questions or comments to esahq@esa.org You can visit our new Home Page on the World Wide Web (if you have Mosaic, Netscape, or similar program) at: http://www.sdsc.edu/1/SDSC/Research/Comp_Bio/ESA/ESA.html #### ------------ End Forwarded Message ------------- From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Mon May 1 10:54:20 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06265; Mon, 1 May 95 10:54:19 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16025; 1 May 95 10:54 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07443; Mon, 1 May 95 07:51:16 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03835; Mon, 1 May 95 08:49:43 MDT Message-Id: <9505011449.AA03835@ladrones.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 08:49:43 -0600 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF strategy Status: OR The National Science Foundation's Strategic Plan FYI No. 59, April 25, 1995 A good overview of how NSF will meet the challenges of coming years is provided in a document entitled "NSF in a Changing World, The National Science Foundation's Strategic Plan." This 38-page report was prepared by the NSF Task Force on Strategic Planning and Policy, and was approved by the National Science Board. Excerpts from the plan's Executive Summary follow: "Today, NSF's role as a leader and steward of the Nation's science and engineering enterprise faces new tests -- promoting new approaches to research, education, and workforce training that reach all Americans; responding to the increased importance of science and engineering in many aspects of daily life; modernizing the Nation's research infrastructure, and adapting to a constrained budget environment." "The purpose of this plan is to delineate NSF's unique contributions to science and engineering research and education and to the Federal research portfolio. The plan provides a context for shaping NSF's future by noting how recent domestic and global changes have affected our national research and education priorities. Within this context, the plan sets forth NSF's mission, its vision, and the following long-range goals: "Enable the U.S. to uphold a position of world leadership in all aspects of science, mathematics and engineering. This goal grows from the conviction that a position of world leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering provides the Nation with the broadest range of options in determining the course of our economic future and our national security. "Promote the discovery, integration, dissemination, and employment of new knowledge in service to society. This goal emphasizes the connection between world leadership in science and engineering on the one hand, and contributions in the national interest on the other. It provides the impetus for setting fundamental research priorities in areas that reflect national concerns." (A four page section describes three priority areas: improved environmental quality; harnessing information technology; and job creation and economic growth. Under these three areas are NSF's seven strategic areas.) "Achieve excellence in U.S. science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at all levels. This goal is worthy in its own right, and also recognizes that the first two goals can be met only by providing educational excellence. It requires attention to needs at every level of schooling and access to science, mathematics, engineering, and technology educational opportunities for every member of society." The strategic plan identifies four "core strategies that NSF will employ. These strategies reaffirm the Foundation's traditions, especially its reliance on merit review of investigator-initiated proposals, yet at the same time point to new directions for the Foundation". They are "develop intellectual capital," "strengthen the physical infrastructure," "integrate research and education," and "promote partnerships." The Executive Summary concludes: "This strategic plan is an invitation to the research and education communities to respond to a rapidly changing world. It emphasizes a set of principles, goals, and core strategies for science, mathematics, and engineering that are aimed at developing a greater sense of interdependence between the research and education communities and the public. Only by succeeding in this partnership can we realistically expand the promise of science and more fully engage the public in its future course." The document is available through the NSF Home Page on the World Wide Web at this address: http://www.nsf.gov To obtain a printed copy, call the foundation at 703-306-1130, or e-mail to pubs@nsf.gov The publication number is NSF95-24 (NEW). ############### From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Mon May 1 10:56:52 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06278; Mon, 1 May 95 10:56:51 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17080; 1 May 95 10:56 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07462; Mon, 1 May 95 07:53:20 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03852; Mon, 1 May 95 08:51:48 MDT Message-Id: <9505011451.AA03852@ladrones.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 08:51:47 -0600 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: DOE report Status: OR DOE Responds to Galvin Report Recommendations FYI No. 60, April 27, 1995 In its quest to "reinvent" federal departments, the Administration has completed reviews of its largest federal laboratory complexes. This interagency review of DOD, DOE, and NASA laboratories is to be submitted to the National Science and Technology Council. As part of this effort, a Task Force led by Robert Galvin examined and reported on DOE's national laboratories (see FYIs #17, #40.) DOE's 42-page response to the Galvin report, entitled, "Report of the Department of Energy for the Interagency Federal Laboratory Review," was released on March 8. DOE intends to "use this examination as an instrument for change...[and] to meet the President's goal...of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of these R&D institutions in meeting current and future national needs." The document reports that the Galvin Task Force "has clearly and forcefully validated the work of the DOE laboratories in the areas of energy, national security, environment, and fundamental science." It adds that "On the question of management, however, the Task Force could hardly have expressed greater alarm. They concluded that the existing system of governance...is broken. The Department agrees, and has developed the following plan to fix it." DOE's plan includes a roadmap of elements to be achieved, and a new management structure for the labs. "To help the Department and the laboratories work their way out of a thicket of cumbersome, inefficient, and non value-added interactions," DOE has designed a "Management Improvement Roadmap." Its elements include: reforming DOE's system of orders and directives; achieving better health, environment and safety performance at lower cost; developing external regulation of the labs; reducing the burden of audits and appraisals; implementing commercial "best practice" procurement policies; establishing within DOE a new governing structure for the labs; and sharpening the labs' focus on their strongest areas. On the issue of lab management, DOE takes exception to the Galvin report's recommendations. "The most provocative recommendation within the Galvin Task Force report," DOE says, "is to `corporatize' the laboratories..." The Department reports that it is "not persuaded that the specific model envisioned [by the Galvin Task Force] would be either practical in the near-term or sustainable over the long-term." DOE plans to explore new governance options, while at the same time improving the current management system. Improvements to the current system include establishing a new, corporate-level governing board within DOE. The Department believes that this "Laboratory Operating Board," made up of senior DOE management officials and a subgroup of private sector advisors, "will address numerous governance issues identified in the Galvin Report." It would meet quarterly, and be responsible for strategic direction and mission allocation for the labs, facility rationalization, right-sizing, and cost-containment. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu May 11 21:23:53 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15906; Thu, 11 May 95 21:23:52 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06155; 11 May 95 21:23 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15918; Thu, 11 May 95 18:20:20 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09490; Thu, 11 May 1995 19:18:53 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 19:18:52 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #67 - House Budget Resolution (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR House Budget Plan Axes DOE, DOC, OTA; Protects "Basic Science" FYI No. 67, May 11, 1995 Today, House Science Committee chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) held a press briefing on the science provisions in the House Budget Committee's budget resolution. The House Budget Committee, chaired by John Kasich (R-OH), introduced their version of a balanced budget plan yesterday. It claims to make a total of $1.4 trillion in cuts to projected spending for the next seven years in order to bring the federal budget into balance by FY 2002, and to provide $360 billion in tax cuts. The Senate version, which would cut $961 billion over the same period and contains no tax cuts, was released on Tuesday (see FYI #66). Walker began his briefing by stating that the budget plan "put the emphasis into basic research." According to Walker and other sources, the major science provisions of the House resolution include: The General Science, Space and Technology budget function, which includes NSF, NASA, and DOE's basic research programs, would initially receive an increase, then be reduced to $900 million by FY 2000. The NSF budget would continue to grow. Its research and related activities, with the exclusion of social, behavioral and economic studies and the Critical Technologies Institute, are slated for annual increases of three percent. However, just as in the Senate plan, the House resolution considers a baseline of current-year (FY 1995) funding for future years, and any increase beyond that is considered growth, with inflation not taken into account. DOE would be eliminated, although some of its activities would be continued elsewhere. Programs such as Energy Supply and Conservation would experience significant cuts. NASA would be reduced from its current budget of over $14 billion to $11.7 billion by FY 2000. Estimated savings from President Clinton's planned management reforms are included in the resolution, as well as privatization of the shuttle. The Space Station would remain fully funded. Additional cuts of $2.7 billion would come from rescoping the Mission to Planet Earth. The Department of Commerce would be abolished. While the core intramural laboratory programs of NIST would be preserved, and even increased to $306.6 million by FY 2000, the Advanced Technology Program would be canceled. The Office of Technology Assessment would also be eliminated. Asked where programs salvaged from the eliminated departments would be relocated, Walker said that while the plan did not call for a Department of Science, he thought such an entity might be an option. He also noted that the fate of many program would lie with the appropriations and authorization subcommittees, which would decide how and where to make many of the reductions called for in the resolution. ############### From smartin@lternet.edu Fri May 12 14:46:30 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19617; Fri, 12 May 95 14:46:28 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04612; 12 May 95 14:46 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21334; Fri, 12 May 95 11:43:03 PDT Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 11:43:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fwd: New NBS Inventory and Monitoring Web (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Subject: fwd: New NBS Inventory and Monitoring Web Comments By: DAVE MEYER@SCI SYSTEMS@TNCHQ Originally To: Dave Meyer Originally From: BIODICEN-L Distribution List Comments: This is a cross-post from the BIODICEN-L that I thought many on BENE would find valuable. -Dave Meyer The Nature Conservancy -------------------------[Original Message]-------------------------- Announcing the National Biological Service's Inventory and Monitoring Section's World Wide Web. HTTP://WWW.IM.NBS.GOV/ Access to the following data sets: North American Breeding Bird Survey Christmas Bird Count Breeding Bird Census Bird Banding Data request forms for the above datasets are available in addition to the information online. Downloadable Wildlife Monitoring and Mark-Recapture Software via our FTP site (FTP.IM.NBS.GOV). This site has a number of programs already, but will be greatly expanded to include all The Wildlife Societies' software. We accept contributions of any freeware related to Inventoring and Monitoring Plants and Animals. Information on the following programs: North American Amphibian Monitoring Program Butterfly Monitoring Research Program Biomonitoring Environmental Status and Trends National Water-Quality Assessment Program Gap Analysis Program Bird Banding Lab Breeding Bird Survey Christmas Bird Count Breeding Bird Census Future Developments: Christmas Bird Count data will be formatted similar to BBS system. Migration Monitoring Program will be announced. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship program will be online. Links to other Inventory and Monitoring Sites will be developed. A data archiving repository for monitoring data is being developed A cache of monitoring protocols will be available for downloading The Finest in Web Craft: Visit the Breeding Bird Survey Home Pages where we have relative abundance maps, trend maps, annual index graphs, tables of trend estimates, and photographs of hundreds of bird species. Further questions can be directed to the Webmaster, Brett Hoover. brett_hoover@nbs.gov 301-497-5819 From smartin@lternet.edu Fri May 12 15:10:51 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19764; Fri, 12 May 95 15:10:50 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab13706; 12 May 95 15:10 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21500; Fri, 12 May 95 12:07:13 PDT Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: jobs@lternet.washington.edu Subject: EPA Vacancy in Newport, Oregon (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Vacancy Announcement: Chief, Coastal Branch (Newport, Oregon) Western Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development United States Environmental Protection Agency ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Ecology Division ( located in Corvallis, Oregon) of EPA's National Human and Environmental Effects Laboratory will be formally advertising the position of CHIEF, COASTAL BRANCH. The position will be located in Newport, Oregon. The Coastal Branch is one of three branches within the Western Ecology Division (formerly the Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis) and each branch chief reports to the Director, located in Corvallis. The branch chief position requires: (1) a PhD in a discipline of biology, ecology, natural resources, or closely allied field; (2) a significant track record of successful personal research and publication in the peer reviewed scientific literature; (3) a successful track record of leading a complex research enterprise in the area of ecology, natural resources, or closely allied field; and (4) demonstrated experience to effectively supervise senior level scientists with diverse disciplines. The position is expected to be filled at the GS 15 level (annual salary range $70,000 - $90,000). The formal announcement is expected to be issued soon. Please contact Dr. Robert T. Lackey, Deputy Director with questions or to be placed on the mailing list to receive the official vacancy announcement. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert T. Lackey, Deputy Director Western Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 200 SW 35th Street Corvallis, Oregon 97333 lackey.robert@epamail.epa.gov From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri May 12 17:46:25 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA20491; Fri, 12 May 95 17:46:23 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07720; 12 May 95 17:46 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22812; Fri, 12 May 95 14:43:24 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA15734; Fri, 12 May 1995 15:41:56 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01174; Fri, 12 May 1995 15:36:20 -0600 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 15:36:19 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: What's New in Congress for May 12, 1995 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park Friday, 12 May 95 Washington, DC 1. "ELIMINATING INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY" -- ONE SCIENTIST AT A TIME. In a letter to the New York Times, the serial bomber who has been killing or maiming academics for two decades explained that, "We would not want anyone to think that we have any desire to hurt professors who study archaeology, history, literature or harmless stuff like that. The people we are out to get are the scientists and engineers, especially in critical fields like computers and genetics.... We advocate eliminating industrial society." 2. ELIMINATING THE FEDERAL DEFICIT -- ONE DEPARTMENT AT A TIME. This week, the chairs of the Senate and House Budget Committees announced plans for balancing the federal budget by 2002. A lot must happen before any of this is translated into appropriations, but it appears that the federal government is going to look very different--and a lot smaller. The Kasich plan in the House has far more detail than the plan Domenici presented to the Senate; it is also necessarily more radical, since it includes a tax cut as promised in the Contract. But taxes aside, the two plans share a common outlook: privatize it where you can, devolve it to the states where you can't, and if you can't do either, abolish it. o NSF: Both plans call for refocusing on basic research. Under Kasich's plan, NSF would continue to grow to $3.3B by FY 2000. o NASA: Under the Kasich plan, NASA funding would decline from $14B to $11.7. In a truly awesome disregard for common sense, the space station would be fully funded, and the shuttle would be privatized. Mission to Planet Earth would be "descoped" by $2.7B. o NIST: Both Kasich and Domenici call for abolishing the Commerce Department, but Kasich would preserve NIST as a separate agency. As expected, the Advanced Technology Program would be eliminated. o ENERGY: Although the Kasich budget calls for eliminating DOE, General Science is protected, including the Drell bump (WN 27 May 94) and the Facilities Utilization Initiative (WN 10 Feb 95). Energy supply would drop by two-thirds--except hydrogen research. o EDUCATION: The Kasich plan calls for abolishing the Department of Education and "returning education to the state and local level." What will become of the essential pieces? Well, maybe there won't be any; more than 150 programs would be terminated. o OTA: Both plans eliminate the Office of Technology Assessment. 3. FLASH! SPACE STATION AUTHORIZATION BILL IS PULLED BY WALKER! Walker (R-PA), chair of the House Science Committee, acted after he was put "on notice" by George Brown (D-CA) that the bill (WN 7 Apr 95) might not receive support from key Committee Democrats. From jgosz@lternet.washington.edu Tue Apr 25 20:53:24 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16633; Tue, 25 Apr 95 20:53:23 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26852; 25 Apr 95 20:53 EDT Received: from dirt.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26503; Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:51:26 PDT Received: by dirt.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01648; Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:51:06 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:51:06 PDT From: James Gosz Message-Id: <9504260051.AA01648@dirt.lternet.washington.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Senate hearings on S&T programs Status: OR Senate Hearing on S&T Programs; New Presidential Report FYI No. 57, April 24, 1995 A hearing on the Clinton Administration's science and technology programs a few weeks ago highlighted some of the issues Congress will consider as it turns to the FY 1996 budget over the next few months. Helpful in framing the coming debate over the administration's support of science, and particularly technology, is a recently issued document, "Science and Technology, a Report of the President." Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Gibbons and National Science Foundation Director Neal Lane appeared before Senator Conrad Burns (R-Montana) three weeks ago in a hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. This well-attended, but low-key hearing gave Gibbons an opportunity to speak about the high rate of return for investment in science and technology, and to present the "compelling case for the president's position" that is described at greater length in the above-cited report. Lane discussed NSF's strategic plan which has also been released, and which will be covered in a future FYI. Chairman Burns discussed one of the more controversial technology programs, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at the Department of Commerce. "I support the ATP" for start-ups, Burns said, but added that he was surprised at the size of the administration's requested increased for the program (14.0%.) He asked if this could be justified in light of other government programs being cut, and in remarks echoing Senate Appropriations subcommittee chairman Phil Gramm (R-Texas) said it was a "very fine line...where we go and don't go" (see FYI #56.) Gibbons explained the various features of the program to counter the concern that the ATP is industrial policy. Joining in this discussion was Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia) who said that "it worries me greatly" that Congress is arguing about the federal role in science and technology. This is, Rockefeller said, "at the heart of the greatest conflict here in the Commerce Committee." If there was one area that Burns and Rockefeller showed great interest in, and support of, it was NSF's EPSCoR program. A second panel of witnesses testified in support of EPSCoR, and it was evident that both senators, from rural states, were very enthusiastic about the opportunities this program has given their constituents. Coincidental with this hearing was the release of the 40-page document, "Science and Technology, A Report of the President." This is a biennial report required by a 1976 law. "This report describes the actions and plans of the Clinton Administration to harness the power of science and technology," the document declares. It finds that the distinctions between basic and applied science "are blurring" and contends that there is not a linear progression between them. Federal priorities in science and technology (such as health, environmental quality, economic growth, education, etc.) are described. Research on the top quark is one of highlighted areas. This report is available via the OSTP Homepage on the World Wide Web at the following site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OSTP.html ############### From jgosz@lternet.washington.edu Tue Apr 25 20:55:40 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16641; Tue, 25 Apr 95 20:55:39 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27503; 25 Apr 95 20:55 EDT Received: from dirt.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26516; Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:52:46 PDT Received: by dirt.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01657; Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:52:27 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 17:52:27 PDT From: James Gosz Message-Id: <9504260052.AA01657@dirt.lternet.washington.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi President Technology Report Status: OR New Report Provides Praise But Caution for U.S. Competitive Position FYI No. 58, April 25, 1995 "This is one of the best arguments I have seen for continued Federal support of dual-use technology research and development -- our very economic and security future may depend on it." -- John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released a report last month that the Administration will likely use to argue for support of its cooperative programs with industry. The 197-page "National Critical Technologies Report," the third in a biennial series, reviews the United States' competitive position in seven broad technology categories, and 27 specific technology areas, in comparison with the positions of Japan and the European Community. While the report concludes that the U.S. is either leading or at parity with its competitors in all 27 of the categories identified, it warns that the size of the U.S. lead in many areas is declining. According to John Gibbons, the President's Assistant for Science and Technology and director of OSTP, "This report documents the very tenuous lead we maintain in many of the technologies critical to our military and economic well-being at the very same time that the new Congressional leadership proposes to gut the very core of our strategy to preserve American preeminence in these critical areas. What is also abundantly clear in this report is the degree to which certain key technologies - such as information technology, manufacturing processes, sensor development, and advanced materials - are crucial to both military and economic security..... The next generation of military systems and capabilities requires superior technology in five of seven major technology categories, including 21 of 27 critical areas surveyed by the report." The report was prepared by OSTP with assistance from the Critical Technologies Institute, and reviewed informally by an independent panel of public- and private-sector leaders. The technologies surveyed were identified from various Defense Department documents. The categories and areas examined are: Energy: energy efficiency; storage, conditioning, distribution, and transmission; and improved generation. Environmental Quality: monitoring and assessment; pollution control; and remediation and restoration. Information and Communication: components; communications, computer systems; information management; intelligent complex adaptive systems; sensors; and software and toolkits. Living Systems: biotechnology; medical technology; agriculture and food technology; and human factors. Manufacturing: discrete product manufacturing; continuous materials processing; and micro/nanofabrication and machining. Materials: materials; structures. Transportation: aerodynamics; avionics and controls; propulsion and power; systems integration; and human interface. According to the report, critical technologies fall under the "applied research" and "development" portion of the federal R&D portfolio. The document is intended to identify necessary areas of focus for the federal R&D effort, and to coordinate federal R&D policy with a common set of priorities. A copy of the report can be obtained from RAND (contact: Linda Tanner, (202) 296-5000, x5692.) ############### From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Mon May 1 10:54:20 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06265; Mon, 1 May 95 10:54:19 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16025; 1 May 95 10:54 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07443; Mon, 1 May 95 07:51:16 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03835; Mon, 1 May 95 08:49:43 MDT Message-Id: <9505011449.AA03835@ladrones.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 08:49:43 -0600 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF strategy Status: OR The National Science Foundation's Strategic Plan FYI No. 59, April 25, 1995 A good overview of how NSF will meet the challenges of coming years is provided in a document entitled "NSF in a Changing World, The National Science Foundation's Strategic Plan." This 38-page report was prepared by the NSF Task Force on Strategic Planning and Policy, and was approved by the National Science Board. Excerpts from the plan's Executive Summary follow: "Today, NSF's role as a leader and steward of the Nation's science and engineering enterprise faces new tests -- promoting new approaches to research, education, and workforce training that reach all Americans; responding to the increased importance of science and engineering in many aspects of daily life; modernizing the Nation's research infrastructure, and adapting to a constrained budget environment." "The purpose of this plan is to delineate NSF's unique contributions to science and engineering research and education and to the Federal research portfolio. The plan provides a context for shaping NSF's future by noting how recent domestic and global changes have affected our national research and education priorities. Within this context, the plan sets forth NSF's mission, its vision, and the following long-range goals: "Enable the U.S. to uphold a position of world leadership in all aspects of science, mathematics and engineering. This goal grows from the conviction that a position of world leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering provides the Nation with the broadest range of options in determining the course of our economic future and our national security. "Promote the discovery, integration, dissemination, and employment of new knowledge in service to society. This goal emphasizes the connection between world leadership in science and engineering on the one hand, and contributions in the national interest on the other. It provides the impetus for setting fundamental research priorities in areas that reflect national concerns." (A four page section describes three priority areas: improved environmental quality; harnessing information technology; and job creation and economic growth. Under these three areas are NSF's seven strategic areas.) "Achieve excellence in U.S. science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at all levels. This goal is worthy in its own right, and also recognizes that the first two goals can be met only by providing educational excellence. It requires attention to needs at every level of schooling and access to science, mathematics, engineering, and technology educational opportunities for every member of society." The strategic plan identifies four "core strategies that NSF will employ. These strategies reaffirm the Foundation's traditions, especially its reliance on merit review of investigator-initiated proposals, yet at the same time point to new directions for the Foundation". They are "develop intellectual capital," "strengthen the physical infrastructure," "integrate research and education," and "promote partnerships." The Executive Summary concludes: "This strategic plan is an invitation to the research and education communities to respond to a rapidly changing world. It emphasizes a set of principles, goals, and core strategies for science, mathematics, and engineering that are aimed at developing a greater sense of interdependence between the research and education communities and the public. Only by succeeding in this partnership can we realistically expand the promise of science and more fully engage the public in its future course." The document is available through the NSF Home Page on the World Wide Web at this address: http://www.nsf.gov To obtain a printed copy, call the foundation at 703-306-1130, or e-mail to pubs@nsf.gov The publication number is NSF95-24 (NEW). ############### From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Mon May 1 10:56:52 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06278; Mon, 1 May 95 10:56:51 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17080; 1 May 95 10:56 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07462; Mon, 1 May 95 07:53:20 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03852; Mon, 1 May 95 08:51:48 MDT Message-Id: <9505011451.AA03852@ladrones.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 08:51:47 -0600 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: DOE report Status: OR DOE Responds to Galvin Report Recommendations FYI No. 60, April 27, 1995 In its quest to "reinvent" federal departments, the Administration has completed reviews of its largest federal laboratory complexes. This interagency review of DOD, DOE, and NASA laboratories is to be submitted to the National Science and Technology Council. As part of this effort, a Task Force led by Robert Galvin examined and reported on DOE's national laboratories (see FYIs #17, #40.) DOE's 42-page response to the Galvin report, entitled, "Report of the Department of Energy for the Interagency Federal Laboratory Review," was released on March 8. DOE intends to "use this examination as an instrument for change...[and] to meet the President's goal...of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of these R&D institutions in meeting current and future national needs." The document reports that the Galvin Task Force "has clearly and forcefully validated the work of the DOE laboratories in the areas of energy, national security, environment, and fundamental science." It adds that "On the question of management, however, the Task Force could hardly have expressed greater alarm. They concluded that the existing system of governance...is broken. The Department agrees, and has developed the following plan to fix it." DOE's plan includes a roadmap of elements to be achieved, and a new management structure for the labs. "To help the Department and the laboratories work their way out of a thicket of cumbersome, inefficient, and non value-added interactions," DOE has designed a "Management Improvement Roadmap." Its elements include: reforming DOE's system of orders and directives; achieving better health, environment and safety performance at lower cost; developing external regulation of the labs; reducing the burden of audits and appraisals; implementing commercial "best practice" procurement policies; establishing within DOE a new governing structure for the labs; and sharpening the labs' focus on their strongest areas. On the issue of lab management, DOE takes exception to the Galvin report's recommendations. "The most provocative recommendation within the Galvin Task Force report," DOE says, "is to `corporatize' the laboratories..." The Department reports that it is "not persuaded that the specific model envisioned [by the Galvin Task Force] would be either practical in the near-term or sustainable over the long-term." DOE plans to explore new governance options, while at the same time improving the current management system. Improvements to the current system include establishing a new, corporate-level governing board within DOE. The Department believes that this "Laboratory Operating Board," made up of senior DOE management officials and a subgroup of private sector advisors, "will address numerous governance issues identified in the Galvin Report." It would meet quarterly, and be responsible for strategic direction and mission allocation for the labs, facility rationalization, right-sizing, and cost-containment. ############### From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Wed May 3 12:37:39 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16945; Wed, 3 May 95 12:37:34 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05611; 3 May 95 12:37 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23354; Wed, 3 May 95 09:33:25 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05646; Wed, 3 May 95 10:31:53 MDT Message-Id: <9505031631.AA05646@ladrones.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 10:31:53 -0600 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Congress Budget progress Status: OR Congress Gets Down to Business on FY 1996 Budget FYI No. 61, May 2, 1995 The new fiscal year starts five months from now. During this time, Congress will go through an intensely controversial period as it writes budget legislation. It is almost a certainty that science and technology funding will be cut, the only question being by how much. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) is going to take the first stab at coming up with more than $1 trillion in savings by the year 2002 with a budget resolution next week. This resolution sets the general outlines of federal revenue and spending. He is expected to call for a freeze in domestic discretionary program spending through 2002, and, in addition, $200 billion in cuts through program terminations. This resolution will indicate how much sentiment there is in the Senate to eliminate the Departments of Energy and Commerce, and to establish a new Department of Science. This resolution will also give a target for aggregate science and technology spending. Domenici had planned to have his resolution in hand by now, but postponed it. His explanation: "There's just too much strain to do it under the gun....There's a lot of queasiness here -- I'm queasy myself." House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-OH) will produce his own budget resolution in mid-May, with a House vote on May 17 and 18. A final, compromise budget resolution is optimistically scheduled for the end of May. There will be immediate and enormous controversy surrounding these budget resolutions. During the last 32 years, spending on domestic programs has fallen only three times. Under the Domenici plan it would likely decline every year for seven years. The Senate Appropriations Committee has already gone on record as being very wary of a spending freeze, much less further cuts. One policy group estimates that non-defense discretionary appropriations would be reduced by one-third or more below once projected levels (which allowed for growth) by the year 2002 under this scenario. The numbers in the budget resolution are going to then be used, according to House Science Committee Chairman Bob Walker (R-PA) as targets for various science and technology authorization bills (see FYI #53.) Maximum spending caps and program direction would be set by the science committee in these bills, which may be rolled into one omnibus science authorization bill. This is where programs which are out-of-favor with House Republicans may get the ax, such as the Advanced Technology Program. This is also where the momentum for a new Department of Science could gather. This authorization legislation would serve as a guide for the appropriations committees. Around this time the various appropriations committees will write their own bills. All thirteen bills are supposed to go to the full House by June 10, for final House action by June 30. A vital consideration for the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies appropriations subcommittees (which have jurisdiction over NSF and NASA), the energy and water development appropriations subcommittees (DOE) and the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations subcommittees (Commerce, including NIST) are their 602(b) allocations. This is the amount of money which each subcommittee will be given to "spend" for FY 1996, and is determined by the full appropriations committee in each house. A large part of the VA, HUD bill funds veterans medical care. An attempt to reduce this spending ran into real opposition earlier this year, so this program is not likely to see significant cuts. NASA's space station also seems to be relatively insulated from spending reductions on the committee level, although anything could happen on the floor. Pressure on other program budgets is likely to increase. Senate appropriations action will follow, with final legislation to reach the president's desk by September 30. Congress usually finds this schedule difficult to meet under the best of times; this year the process is going to be far more difficult. Much of the bipartisan approach to appropriations legislation on the committee level disappeared during the first 100 days of this session. President Clinton can, of course, veto any bill. The House of Representatives returns from its three-week spring recess today to begin this process. Members of Congress will hear from their constituents during the coming months about what the budget should look like. A forthcoming FYI will provide guidance on constituent communication with Congress. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed May 3 14:07:06 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17472; Wed, 3 May 95 14:07:03 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16913; 3 May 95 14:07 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25447; Wed, 3 May 95 11:00:47 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09352; Wed, 3 May 1995 11:59:15 -0600 Message-Id: <9505031759.AA09352@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Wed, 3 May 95 11:59:15 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: LTER program evaluation Status: OR > From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Wed May 3 11:51:53 1995 > Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) > id AA05731; Wed, 3 May 95 11:51:51 MDT > Message-Id: <9505031751.AA05731@ladrones.unm.edu> > From: jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu (James Gosz) > Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 11:51:51 -0600 > X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) > To: jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu > Subject: vcr site visit > > Bruce Hayden just informed me that they will have a site visit from the Budget > Office people of NSF and the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) individual > that is responsible for the BIO budget in NSF. We do not know the dates yet > but it is likely to be in June or July. > > This is not simply a visit to VCR but to see a LTER site in action and develop > the information necessary to justify the level of support the LTER program > receives. Remember that the climate in Washington, D.C. is now one of looking > for places to cut. Programs that retain current levels of funding need to be > supported vigorously. Thus, this site visit is important to all of the LTER > sites - the LTER program. > > The site visit also will help these individuals defend the NSF budget in > general by identifying important programs/products. > > The visitors are likely to be: > > Tricia Crumley -- NSF Budget Office Bio > Ed Blansitt -- Div. Dir. of Budget Office > Sarah Horrigan -- OMB Examiner > Matty Hymowitz -- Branch Chief for Program Analysis > > Bruce has been in contact with Tricia Crumley and has a good idea of the types > of LTER-wide information that would be valuable to convey to them. He would > use VCR as an example of the program but supplement that with information from > other sites to demonstrate the generality of the issues and values. > > Here are questions that Bruce has given me that I would like each site to > answer. You can send the information directly to Bruce but please cc me so I > can develop that information in the Network Office. > > Questions: > > What fraction of your NSF $ does your site spend on the infrastructure of > your field site or station? VCR ~25%. > > How much of your NSF money is spent in and circulates in the community in > which your field station is located. $150,000. > > How many PIs are involved with your LTER. VCR 25 > > How much of the NSF resourse base goes to an average PI: VCR $12,000 > > How do you get much from anyone for that much money. We leverage our > infrastruictucture ($125,000 per year) that they can all use. They would > have to have that much per year on an Ecosystem proposal to do the same > work. We spend the $125,000 once not for each of the 25 PIs. > > How many institutions are represented by your PIs. VCR 7. > > What is required of PIs. VCR Participate in decision making, conduct > research consistent with the centeral research hypothesis of the site: > promptly publish the results of their research, make public data collected > within 2 years of collection, support core area data studies, participate > in network funcitons, and most importantly develop independent proposals > for research at the site using the site infrastructure to leverage these > new monies, participate in LTER international programs. > > What is the overhead at your institution: VCR 23% > > How many undergraduate students are involved in research at your site? VCR > 8-10. > > How many graduate students are involved in reearch at your site? VCR 15-17. > > How do you deliver the restults of your research to the public (informal > science): VCR: We maintain a WWW Netscape server that is public on the > internet. We provide programs to the local public school systems. We give > lectures and participate in local decision making where our scientic > knowledge will help. We publish for both our professional colleagues and > the general public. > > > > We also will provide Bruce with materials from the Network Office (pubs., > reports, brochures, etc.) If you have other materials that are unique to your > site, please let Bruce know about them. > > If there are additional questions that become important to generate other > information, we will be back in touch!! > > THIS IS AN ACTIVITY THAT I JUDGE TO BE VERY IMPORTANT. WE ALL NEED TO PITCH > IN TO GIVE BRUCE AS MUCH AS HELP AS POSSIBLE. ALL OF OUR INTERESTS ARE > INVOLVED. > > Jim Gosz > From tilman@cdr.lter.umn.edu Wed May 3 15:38:21 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17947; Wed, 3 May 95 15:38:19 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27602; 3 May 95 15:38 EDT Received: from cdr.lter.umn.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26814; Wed, 3 May 95 12:33:35 PDT Received: by cdr.lter.umn.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21979; Wed, 3 May 1995 14:31:41 +0600 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 14:31:39 -0500 (CDT) From: David Tilman To: James Gosz Cc: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Re: LTER program evaluation In-Reply-To: <9505031759.AA09352@sevilleta.unm.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5694 Status: OR Jim, Sarah Horrigan visited the Cedar Creek LTER last year. He background is in marine microbial ecology. She, and those with her, advise on the allocation of federal funds to various science agencies. I found Sarah to be straightforward and forthright. She was interested in the broad implications and applications of our science to society. She asked questions such as "Why should society support this research? How does the importance of this work compare to that in astronomy or space exploration?" We also provided her with information on the various matching funds that our LTER site receives, and feel that she considered the LTER grant to be a good investement in building a team of researchers. We treated the visit in a low-key manner. We did not put on a staged show. She clearly has seen many staged shows, and seemed to relax when she realized that she was seeing the actual daily activities of our site. She is a thoughtful person who gathers facts and weighs them. Perhaps these comments will be of some use as we reply to your request. Dave On Wed, 3 May 1995, James Gosz wrote: > > > From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Wed May 3 11:51:53 1995 > > Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) > > id AA05731; Wed, 3 May 95 11:51:51 MDT > > Message-Id: <9505031751.AA05731@ladrones.unm.edu> > > From: jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu (James Gosz) > > Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 11:51:51 -0600 > > X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) > > To: jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu > > Subject: vcr site visit > > > > Bruce Hayden just informed me that they will have a site visit from the Budget > > Office people of NSF and the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) individual > > that is responsible for the BIO budget in NSF. We do not know the dates yet > > but it is likely to be in June or July. > > > > This is not simply a visit to VCR but to see a LTER site in action and develop > > the information necessary to justify the level of support the LTER program > > receives. Remember that the climate in Washington, D.C. is now one of looking > > for places to cut. Programs that retain current levels of funding need to be > > supported vigorously. Thus, this site visit is important to all of the LTER > > sites - the LTER program. > > > > The site visit also will help these individuals defend the NSF budget in > > general by identifying important programs/products. > > > > The visitors are likely to be: > > > > Tricia Crumley -- NSF Budget Office Bio > > Ed Blansitt -- Div. Dir. of Budget Office > > Sarah Horrigan -- OMB Examiner > > Matty Hymowitz -- Branch Chief for Program Analysis > > > > Bruce has been in contact with Tricia Crumley and has a good idea of the types > > of LTER-wide information that would be valuable to convey to them. He would > > use VCR as an example of the program but supplement that with information from > > other sites to demonstrate the generality of the issues and values. > > > > Here are questions that Bruce has given me that I would like each site to > > answer. You can send the information directly to Bruce but please cc me so I > > can develop that information in the Network Office. > > > > Questions: > > > > What fraction of your NSF $ does your site spend on the infrastructure of > > your field site or station? VCR ~25%. > > > > How much of your NSF money is spent in and circulates in the community in > > which your field station is located. $150,000. > > > > How many PIs are involved with your LTER. VCR 25 > > > > How much of the NSF resourse base goes to an average PI: VCR $12,000 > > > > How do you get much from anyone for that much money. We leverage our > > infrastruictucture ($125,000 per year) that they can all use. They would > > have to have that much per year on an Ecosystem proposal to do the same > > work. We spend the $125,000 once not for each of the 25 PIs. > > > > How many institutions are represented by your PIs. VCR 7. > > > > What is required of PIs. VCR Participate in decision making, conduct > > research consistent with the centeral research hypothesis of the site: > > promptly publish the results of their research, make public data collected > > within 2 years of collection, support core area data studies, participate > > in network funcitons, and most importantly develop independent proposals > > for research at the site using the site infrastructure to leverage these > > new monies, participate in LTER international programs. > > > > What is the overhead at your institution: VCR 23% > > > > How many undergraduate students are involved in research at your site? VCR > > 8-10. > > > > How many graduate students are involved in reearch at your site? VCR 15-17. > > > > How do you deliver the restults of your research to the public (informal > > science): VCR: We maintain a WWW Netscape server that is public on the > > internet. We provide programs to the local public school systems. We give > > lectures and participate in local decision making where our scientic > > knowledge will help. We publish for both our professional colleagues and > > the general public. > > > > > > > > We also will provide Bruce with materials from the Network Office (pubs., > > reports, brochures, etc.) If you have other materials that are unique to your > > site, please let Bruce know about them. > > > > If there are additional questions that become important to generate other > > information, we will be back in touch!! > > > > THIS IS AN ACTIVITY THAT I JUDGE TO BE VERY IMPORTANT. WE ALL NEED TO PITCH > > IN TO GIVE BRUCE AS MUCH AS HELP AS POSSIBLE. ALL OF OUR INTERESTS ARE > > INVOLVED. > > > > Jim Gosz > > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri May 5 00:12:58 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA22864; Fri, 5 May 95 00:12:56 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07454; 5 May 95 0:12 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07623; Thu, 4 May 95 21:11:35 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26880; Thu, 4 May 1995 22:10:04 -0600 Message-Id: <9505050410.AA26880@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 4 May 95 22:10:04 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: contacting congress Status: OR Communicating With Congress: Correspondence FYI No. 62, May 4, 1995 "...I strongly believe that the scientific community as a whole is much too isolated from the federal decision-making process, and much too complacent about its own role in our culture." -- Rep. George Brown (D-CA) ******* During the next five months Congress is going to be looking for $1,000,000,000,000 in savings over the next seven years. An important factor in these deliberations will be constituent input. Members of Congress are very interested in the views of their constituents, and respond to them whenever possible. A large portion of a Member's staff is dedicated to constituent communications, which includes responding to correspondence, telephone calls, and personal visits. Yet, all too often Members of Congress report that they receive little communication from the science community. The old adage, "the squeaky wheel gets the oil" still applies to many actions which Congress has taken, and will take. Congressional turnover in the last two elections has brought many new members to the House of Representatives (45%+.) Both old and new members of the House and Senate meet frequently with veterans, farmers, business leaders, and other individuals in their district and states, and receive letters from these interests daily. Many of these constituents make sure that their Members of Congress know their views on policy and spending. That is usually not true for scientists. Most members, especially those new to Congress, do not have a clear understanding of who the scientists are in their district or state, and the value of their research. Informing a Member of Congress of your views is neither difficult nor time consuming. Below are some time-proven guidelines on ensuring that your representative and senators know what you think about the FY 1996 budget that is now taking shape, and where the one trillion dollars in savings should come from over the next seven years. WRITING TO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS: Constituent mail is, by far, the most popular way to inform members. Congressional offices receive, and send, thousands of letters every year. Many of these letters are not as effective as they could be -- often a letter is difficult to read, covers too many topics, displays a lack of understanding, or fails to include a return address. Here is what you can do to make sure that your letter stands out: Timing is important. A letter which reaches your representative or senators after a vote is held is useless. A letter sent months before an issue is considered is likely to be forgotten. FYI monitors legislation of interest to the physics and astronomy community on an on-going basis, and provides notice of upcoming key events and dates whenever possible. Limit your letter to one page, and to one subject. Too many letter are overly long, and cover so many topics that they are delayed by being routed to several staff aides for response. Type your letter whenever possible, and make sure it contains a legible name and address. Organize your letter into three paragraphs: In the first paragraph, state your reason for writing and your "credentials." In the second paragraph, state your position with supporting evidence. Include a relevant personal experience. Refer to a bill by its specific number (see FYI or contact us for information.) Avoid emotionalism -- stick to the facts. Offer an alternative approach where appropriate. In your third, and concluding, paragraph, request (not demand) a specific action, such as a vote for or against a bill. Offer your assistance. Avoid e-mail. Although much easier and quicker, congressional offices which now have this capability report that their already stretched staffs are being inundated by electronic mail (Speaker Gingrich (R-GA) received 13,000 messages in the first six weeks of this session.) Not all offices have e-mail. Faxes are also to be avoided if possible, as members find that their machines are frequently overloaded. You do not need an individual office address to write to a member. The preferred address for all representatives, and senators, is as follows: The Honorable ____________ United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator ____________: The Honorable ____________ U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative ____________: Correspondence addressed to your Member of Congress will have greater impact than mail sent to other members. If an important issue is coming before a committee, where legislation is actually drafted, and if your own members are not on that committee, consider the following course: write to the committee chairman, and other key committee members if desired, but also write to your own representative. Ask that they convey your sentiments to the chairman and other committee members. This can be a very effective way for your voice to be heard. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon May 8 10:30:05 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01541; Mon, 8 May 95 10:30:03 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08540; 8 May 95 10:30 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09243; Mon, 8 May 95 07:28:13 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09778; Mon, 8 May 1995 08:26:44 -0600 Message-Id: <9505081426.AA09778@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 8 May 95 08:26:44 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: congress budget action Status: OR GOP Task Force Drafts Budget Bill; Proposes Department Eliminations FYI No. 64, May 5, 1995 During the last session of Congress, a group of House Republicans joined together to develop their own plan to reduce the federal deficit. This ad hoc group, the GOP Balanced Budget Task Force, now boasts over 60 GOP representatives. Working independently of the House Budget Committee, the Task Force, chaired by Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY), has just come out with draft legislation to balance the budget in five years. "Restructuring Government Through Balancing the Budget," released on May 4, proclaims that it is "a preliminary draft of one way Congress could get from where we are to where the taxpayers want us to be." The bill proposes to amass a total of $815.0 billion in savings from projected spending over the next five years. The savings are achieved by various means, from eliminating, cutting, or restructuring some programs, to freezing or slowing the growth of others. The Task Force would attain its largest savings, $105.41 billion, by reforming Medicare. The second largest source of savings, $97.42 billion, would be in Health programs, including freezing NIH funding for three years and cutting $0.9 billion from federally-sponsored health-related university research. Savings from the "Science, Space and Technology" budget function would total $12.46 billion over the five years, obtained by: - Freezing the federal account for General Science and Research activities, for a savings of $0.32 billion; - Limiting the growth rate of the National Science Foundation, for $0.32 billion; - Imposing an unspecified NSF Grant Application Fee, for $0.02 billion; - Canceling the Space Station, for $10.4 billion; - Canceling the National Aerospace Plane, for $0.2 billion; and - Reducing funding for High Performance Computing and Communications, for $1.2 billion. Within the Department of Energy, the Atomic Vapor Isotope Separation (AVLIS) program would be terminated to save $0.5 billion, with additional cuts, elimination, or privatization of such programs as power administrations, petroleum reserves, and energy conservation. Under the Department of Commerce, NIST's Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is targeted for abolishment, for a savings of $0.8 billion. Environmental programs slated for termination include the U.S. Geological Survey, for a savings of $3.3 billion, and the National Biological Survey, saving $0.14 billion. Within the Department of Education, proposals include reducing "Untargeted Funding for Math and Science programs," to save $1.2 billion. The bill makes cuts to almost everything the federal government does, including: National Defense; International Affairs; Science, Space and Technology; Energy; Environment; Agriculture; Commerce and Housing; Transportation; Commercial Development; Education; Health; Medicare; Income Security; Veterans' Benefits; Administration of Justice; and general government. Coupled with Welfare Reform, the proposal estimates that it would achieve a savings over five years of $815.0 billion to bring the federal budget into balance. In addition, there is more yet to come. Next week, the Task Force plans to complete additional legislation, including possible proposals to abolish the Energy, Education, Commerce, and HUD departments. How this will affect science and technology programs within those departments is not yet known. On the premise that the best defense is a good offense, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary is taking actions of her own to try to avoid elimination of her Department. She announced on May 3 that DOE would achieve a savings of $1.7 billion by cutting its workforce by 27 percent over five years. In addition, O'Leary hopes to save several billion dollars more through additional actions, such as selling several electric power agencies and the National Petroleum Reserves. According to press reports, O'Leary announced she was "cutting the crap" to save the science, technology, national security, and environmental clean-up programs. Rep. George Brown (D-CA), ranking Democratic member of the House Science Committee, called her proposals "a perfect example of how we can move to make responsible cuts without sacrificing more of our diminishing national science and technology capability." But Science Committee chairman Robert Walker (R-PA), while commending O'Leary, added that "a reevaluation of DOE programs, and perhaps even the existence of the department itself, will have to be a part of a balanced budget effort. The Department of Energy has provided a useful first step, but reorganization is not the end of the walk." ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon May 8 10:30:13 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01546; Mon, 8 May 95 10:30:12 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08645; 8 May 95 10:30 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09246; Mon, 8 May 95 07:28:32 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09787; Mon, 8 May 1995 08:27:03 -0600 Message-Id: <9505081427.AA09787@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Mon, 8 May 95 08:27:02 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: contacting congress Status: OR Communicating With Congress: Personal Visits FYI No. 63, May 5, 1995 Swarming around the House and Senate office buildings every weekday are citizens who have come to Capitol Hill to present their views to Members of Congress and their staffs. Although they come to Washington for a variety of reasons, they all have one thing in common: they have discovered that the best way to communicate with a Member of Congress is by meeting him or her in person. It is a common request to ask for an appointment with a member and/or staff. On many days there is a constant stream of visitors to a congressional office. Visiting with a member provides a personal touch, an opportunity for questions, and immediate feedback. Here is how to plan a visit: A general rule of thumb is that it is easier to get an appointment with a representative than with a senator. Arranging a meeting with your own members will be much easier than with a representative or senator who does not represent you. If a member is not available, ask for an appointment with the relevant legislative assistant. Plan far ahead. Members of Congress and their staffs are working under crushing work loads this year. Call the Capitol's switchboard at 202-224-3121 and request a specific office. Ask to speak to the appointments scheduler, and briefly introduce yourself (noting if you are a constituent), and describe the purpose of your visit. Call at least three or four weeks in advance. Follow the correspondence guidelines in FYI #62 in planning your presentation, citing relevant legislation (including bill number.) Be ready to provide a brief nontechnical explanation of your topic as appropriate, avoiding all abbreviations and jargon. Allow time for dialogue and questions. Request (not demand) a specific action. Know the member's position on the issue; contact us for assistance if needed. Most appointments last around fifteen minutes; less if they are a courtesy call. If you are coming as a member of a group, decide on a spokesperson. Agree on your presentation and strategy before you arrive. Anticipate schedule changes! An appointment planned months in advance with a member can be changed or canceled because of unanticipated committee or floor action. Committee members can no longer vote by proxy, which means they must be present when bills are being marked-up. A string of back-to-back votes on the floor can keep a member away from his or her office. In this case, a staff assistant will handle the appointment. These dedicated assistants are often the most knowledgeable about legislation, and can be very influential. If appropriate, bring a "hands-on" visual aid. If you have been working on a new product and if it is easily handled, bring it along. A few well selected hand-outs may be useful, but resist the temptation to bring along stacks of materials. In all probability they will never be read. A one-page summary of your position with an attached business card to present at the end of your appointment will be welcomed. End your appointment on time. Follow-up your visit with a thank you letter in which you reiterate your main points, and offer your assistance as needed. If a legislative assistant is present during your appointment, ask for their business card. This individual can serve as your primary source of contact for subsequent telephone calls and informal correspondence. Arrange, if possible, your appointment with the member while they are at their home office. Your meeting will occur in a far more relaxed environment away from committee and floor deliberations and other distractions. Offer to arrange a visit to your facility or institution where the member can get a much clearer impression of what federal taxpayers are helping to support! Although meeting with a Member of Congress may at first glance seem to be an anxiety-producing event -- relax! Most members participate in hundreds of these appointments every year, and they are typically very good at making people feel welcomed and comfortable. After all, if you are their constituent, they are interested in gaining your future support. ############### From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Tue May 9 09:58:01 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05548; Tue, 9 May 95 09:58:00 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11074; 9 May 95 9:57 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21117; Tue, 9 May 95 06:55:28 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04932; Tue, 9 May 95 07:53:58 MDT Message-Id: <9505091353.AA04932@ladrones.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 07:53:58 -0600 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92) To: John Innes Subject: Re: NSF Funding Cc: pi@lternet.edu Status: OR John I am forwarding your message of interest to all of the principal investigators at the LTER sites. Hopefully, some of them will contact you. jim gosz > From john.innes@wsl.ch Mon May 8 07:46:22 1995 > Received: from bernina.ethz.ch (bernina-rz-fddi.ethz.ch) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu > (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08976; Mon, 8 May 95 06:47:45 PDT > Received: from lagonda (actually lagonda.wsl.ch) by bernina.ethz.ch > with SMTP inbound; Mon, 8 May 1995 15:45:51 +0200 > Message-Id: <9505081345.AA24905@lagonda> > Received: from [193.134.205.211] (boreal) by lagonda.wsl.ch id AA24905; > Mon, 8 May 95 15:45:47 +0200 > X-Sender: innes@mail.wsl.ch > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 15:46:38 +0100 > To: jgosz@lternet.edu > From: john.innes@wsl.ch (John Innes) > Subject: NSF Funding > Status: OR > > Dear Jim, > > I noted an item about funding of collaborative projects by DEB related to > LTER sites. Some of the objectives of the competition are: > - encourage comparative and synthesis research that specifically involves > the collaboration of US scientists with projects and colleagues in other > countries > > - assist in developing long-term environmental research programs in major > ecological or geographic regions worldwide. > > We would be interested in coming in as a potential overseas partner with > anyone wanting to develop either of the above, particularly in relation to > forests, mountains or biodiversity assessments in long-term sites. The > scale of our sites is very different to those in the US (max. 100 ha), but > then the (horizontal) scale of the country is also very different! We are > not looking for any direct funding for ourselves - instead we are keen to > foster links with US sites, particularly if the results bring us something > that we can use (method development or data). As I have already indicated > to you, our programme is still in its infancy, so long-term data > comparisons will not be possible. However, the competition guide-lines are > such that there is still lots of potential for collaborative work. > > I look forward to hearing from you. > > Best wishes > > John Innes > > > Dr John L. Innes > > Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research > Zuercherstrasse 111, > CH-8903 Birmensdorf > Switzerland > > Tel: (+41) 1 739 2216 FAX: (+41) 1 739 2215 > email: john.innes@wsl.ch > > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue May 9 21:40:21 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07463; Tue, 9 May 95 21:40:19 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15099; 9 May 95 21:40 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26049; Tue, 9 May 95 18:38:37 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA25808; Tue, 9 May 1995 19:10:20 -0600 Message-Id: <9505100110.AA25808@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Tue, 9 May 95 19:10:19 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Congress briefing on High Performance Computing Status: OR Senate Subcommittee Sees Results of Federal Computing Program FYI No. 65, May 9, 1995 Come fiscal year 1997, the Administration's High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) program will need reauthorizing. On May 4, Conrad Burns (R-MT), chairman of the Senate Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee, held a hearing to "evaluate the program,...and to revisit the question of the appropriate role for the government in this kind of project." The witnesses experienced some heart-stopping moments as the hardware on which they planned to demonstrate the program's utility refused to cooperate. Burns commented, "Son-of-a-gun! There's your billion dollars!" But eventually the glitches were worked out, and the witnesses were able to provide compelling examples of various information technologies, and their relevance to the rural-state subcommittee members in attendance [Burns, Larry Pressler (R-SD), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Ted Stevens (R-AK)]. John Toole, head of the HPCC's National Coordination Office, called the 12-agency program a "model `virtual' agency." Toole quoted a recent National Research Council study which concluded that "the government's investments in information technology have made a significant impact over the long term." He added that while "enormous progress was visible" for the $4 billion spent over the first four years of the program, "much remains to be done.... The real information revolution is still in the future." Toole reported that the FY 1996 request of $1.143 billion would be used to fund competitively selected projects. (In a recent round of awards, about 55 percent went to academia, 20 percent to industry, and 25 percent to government labs.) For the future, Toole cited an NSTC strategic implementation plan, which highlights the following focus areas: global-scale information infrastructure technologies; high performance scalable systems; high confidence systems; virtual environments; user-centered interfaces; and human resources and education. Bill Burrall, a junior high school teacher from West Virginia, described how the Internet "allows students and teachers to overcome the boundaries of time and distance." There are "unlimited, untapped resources out there available to us," he said; "It's critical that we receive continued funding." Steven Running, of the University of Montana School of Forestry, demonstrated uses of remote sensing to monitor land management issues such as droughts, fire danger, snow cover, and water quality. "The single biggest factor in making [remote sensing] truly useful," he stated, is networks to get timely information to land owners and managers at a low cost, so they can use it for planning purposes. Sen. Stevens questioned how small businesses with little time or staff could utilize the vast resources of the Internet. Richard Gowan, president of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, explained a networking service his school is developing to help small companies find information on suppliers, services, and federal assistance. Gowan testified that "the federal services available are truly impressive," but small companies needed assistance "to know which one to go to." Stevens repeated concerns about not leaving behind "people who can't afford computers," but acknowledged the potential importance of information technologies to small states and rural regions. "I think [HPCC] should have a very high level of priority," he concluded. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu May 11 09:51:32 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13445; Thu, 11 May 95 09:51:31 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20903; 11 May 95 9:51 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08383; Thu, 11 May 95 06:46:23 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02067; Thu, 11 May 1995 07:44:55 -0600 Message-Id: <9505111344.AA02067@sevilleta.unm.edu> From: James Gosz Date: Thu, 11 May 95 07:44:54 MDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.0.1 12/13/89) To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Senate Budget Plan (NSF cut) Status: OR Senate Budget Resolution Abolishes DOC, OTA; Cuts NSF, NASA, DOE FYI No. 66, May 10, 1995 "I'm thrilled...to present the first balanced budget in about 25 years." --Sen. Pete Domenici Yesterday, Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) of the Senate Budget Committee released his committee's version of a plan to balance the federal budget by 2002. The plan would make a total reduction of $961 billion to projected spending over the next seven years. In announcing the resolution, Domenici remarked, "It responds to the unequivocal expressed American public majority that wants a balanced budget." To achieve this reduction, the budget resolution includes the "gradual" elimination of the Department of Commerce and many of its functions; the abolishment of the Office of Technology Assessment; and cuts below the current level of spending for programs under the General Science, Space and Technology budget function. This budget function includes NASA, DOE's basic research programs, and NSF. Under the Senate plan, NSF would experience a $100 million reduction in research funding over the seven years, and be instructed to "refocus on its original mission of basic scientific research." Academic infrastructure and major research equipment would also be cut. An expected $2.7 billion would be saved by NASA management reforms, and the plan endorses the "President's freeze and reduction in outyears in DOE research." The gradual elimination of the Department of Commerce is expected to "eventually" save over $1 billion per year. Commerce activities that would be relocated within the federal government include the Patent and Trademark Office, the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, most of the Export Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), although NOAA funding would be reduced by five percent. The section on Commerce makes no mention of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), but states, "the rest of the department's activities in this function are not crucial responsibilities of the federal government or else duplicate responsibilities that are handled by other federal agencies." Domenici's plan would achieve much of its savings by slowing the growth of entitlement programs (including Medicare and Medicaid, but not Social Security). Defense spending would decline for a period, then return to its current level, as proposed by the Clinton Administration. A seven-year total of $190 billion would be saved from non-defense discretionary spending, which includes General Science, Space and Technology. For programs in this category, the plan assumes a baseline of current (FY 1995) spending for seven years, without considering such factors as inflation. According to the Washington Post, if inflation over that period is taken into account, the non-defense discretionary cuts would total $446 billion. The Senate Budget Committee does not provide any tax cuts, but allows for future tax cuts once the Congressional Budget Office has certified that the budget is firmly on a path toward balance. Later this week, the House Budget Committee, chaired by John Kasich (R-OH), will release details of its version of the budget resolution. Future FYIs will provide more details on that plan. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu May 11 21:23:53 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15906; Thu, 11 May 95 21:23:52 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06155; 11 May 95 21:23 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15918; Thu, 11 May 95 18:20:20 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09490; Thu, 11 May 1995 19:18:53 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 19:18:52 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #67 - House Budget Resolution (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR House Budget Plan Axes DOE, DOC, OTA; Protects "Basic Science" FYI No. 67, May 11, 1995 Today, House Science Committee chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) held a press briefing on the science provisions in the House Budget Committee's budget resolution. The House Budget Committee, chaired by John Kasich (R-OH), introduced their version of a balanced budget plan yesterday. It claims to make a total of $1.4 trillion in cuts to projected spending for the next seven years in order to bring the federal budget into balance by FY 2002, and to provide $360 billion in tax cuts. The Senate version, which would cut $961 billion over the same period and contains no tax cuts, was released on Tuesday (see FYI #66). Walker began his briefing by stating that the budget plan "put the emphasis into basic research." According to Walker and other sources, the major science provisions of the House resolution include: The General Science, Space and Technology budget function, which includes NSF, NASA, and DOE's basic research programs, would initially receive an increase, then be reduced to $900 million by FY 2000. The NSF budget would continue to grow. Its research and related activities, with the exclusion of social, behavioral and economic studies and the Critical Technologies Institute, are slated for annual increases of three percent. However, just as in the Senate plan, the House resolution considers a baseline of current-year (FY 1995) funding for future years, and any increase beyond that is considered growth, with inflation not taken into account. DOE would be eliminated, although some of its activities would be continued elsewhere. Programs such as Energy Supply and Conservation would experience significant cuts. NASA would be reduced from its current budget of over $14 billion to $11.7 billion by FY 2000. Estimated savings from President Clinton's planned management reforms are included in the resolution, as well as privatization of the shuttle. The Space Station would remain fully funded. Additional cuts of $2.7 billion would come from rescoping the Mission to Planet Earth. The Department of Commerce would be abolished. While the core intramural laboratory programs of NIST would be preserved, and even increased to $306.6 million by FY 2000, the Advanced Technology Program would be canceled. The Office of Technology Assessment would also be eliminated. Asked where programs salvaged from the eliminated departments would be relocated, Walker said that while the plan did not call for a Department of Science, he thought such an entity might be an option. He also noted that the fate of many program would lie with the appropriations and authorization subcommittees, which would decide how and where to make many of the reductions called for in the resolution. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri May 12 17:46:25 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA20491; Fri, 12 May 95 17:46:23 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07720; 12 May 95 17:46 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22812; Fri, 12 May 95 14:43:24 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA15734; Fri, 12 May 1995 15:41:56 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01174; Fri, 12 May 1995 15:36:20 -0600 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 15:36:19 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: What's New in Congress for May 12, 1995 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park Friday, 12 May 95 Washington, DC 1. "ELIMINATING INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY" -- ONE SCIENTIST AT A TIME. In a letter to the New York Times, the serial bomber who has been killing or maiming academics for two decades explained that, "We would not want anyone to think that we have any desire to hurt professors who study archaeology, history, literature or harmless stuff like that. The people we are out to get are the scientists and engineers, especially in critical fields like computers and genetics.... We advocate eliminating industrial society." 2. ELIMINATING THE FEDERAL DEFICIT -- ONE DEPARTMENT AT A TIME. This week, the chairs of the Senate and House Budget Committees announced plans for balancing the federal budget by 2002. A lot must happen before any of this is translated into appropriations, but it appears that the federal government is going to look very different--and a lot smaller. The Kasich plan in the House has far more detail than the plan Domenici presented to the Senate; it is also necessarily more radical, since it includes a tax cut as promised in the Contract. But taxes aside, the two plans share a common outlook: privatize it where you can, devolve it to the states where you can't, and if you can't do either, abolish it. o NSF: Both plans call for refocusing on basic research. Under Kasich's plan, NSF would continue to grow to $3.3B by FY 2000. o NASA: Under the Kasich plan, NASA funding would decline from $14B to $11.7. In a truly awesome disregard for common sense, the space station would be fully funded, and the shuttle would be privatized. Mission to Planet Earth would be "descoped" by $2.7B. o NIST: Both Kasich and Domenici call for abolishing the Commerce Department, but Kasich would preserve NIST as a separate agency. As expected, the Advanced Technology Program would be eliminated. o ENERGY: Although the Kasich budget calls for eliminating DOE, General Science is protected, including the Drell bump (WN 27 May 94) and the Facilities Utilization Initiative (WN 10 Feb 95). Energy supply would drop by two-thirds--except hydrogen research. o EDUCATION: The Kasich plan calls for abolishing the Department of Education and "returning education to the state and local level." What will become of the essential pieces? Well, maybe there won't be any; more than 150 programs would be terminated. o OTA: Both plans eliminate the Office of Technology Assessment. 3. FLASH! SPACE STATION AUTHORIZATION BILL IS PULLED BY WALKER! Walker (R-PA), chair of the House Science Committee, acted after he was put "on notice" by George Brown (D-CA) that the bill (WN 7 Apr 95) might not receive support from key Committee Democrats. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri May 12 21:34:37 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA20804; Fri, 12 May 95 21:34:36 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05960; 12 May 95 21:34 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25078; Fri, 12 May 95 18:31:53 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA17395; Fri, 12 May 1995 19:30:25 -0600 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 19:30:25 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #68 - Brown Blasts GOP Budget (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Brown Blasts Republican Cuts in Science and Technology Spending FYI No. 68, May 12, 1995 The Ranking Minority Member of the House Science Committee, George Brown (D-CA), has harshly criticized the House Budget Committee's budget resolution. Calling it "a retreat from the federal government's historical role as a driver in research and development," Brown said, "the Kasich-Walker budget is the equivalent of unilateral disarmament in the war to maintain the American standard of living." Brown calculates that "federal support for civilian research and development" under the committee's jurisdiction will decline about 24% from the $27.2 billion appropriated this year to $20.6 billion in FY 2000. Adjusting the Republican figure for inflation of 3% per year from 1995 to 2000 results in a decline of 35%. The effects of the budget resolution on the committee's four subcommittee allocations would vary greatly (see FYI #8, 9 for jurisdictions), and are the first indication of Republican research priorities. Brown's figures show that the Basic Research Subcommittee allocation would increase $6 million from $3,325 million (actual FY 1995) to $3,331 million (FY 2000.) The allocation for the Space Subcommittee would decline $2,892 million, or 20%, from $14,470 million to $11,578 million. The Energy and Environment Subcommittee allocation would decline $2,706 million, or 34%, from $8,018 million to $5,312 million. The Technology Subcommittee allocation would decline $1,039 million, or 73%, from $1,421 million to $382 million. None of these figures allow for inflation. The House and Senate budget resolutions provide the spending and taxing targets for congressional committees. The House and Senate are expected to vote on their budget resolutions next week, and congressional leaders express confidence that they will pass. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) predicts that these versions will be brought into alignment by Memorial Day. The House will consider all thirteen appropriations bills between June 5 and July 15. Somewhat surprisingly, House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) now says that he will leave it to the appropriations committees to reconfigure DOE operations if the department is abolished. "We have not decided on a structure...we're going to let the appropriating committees rationalize all of this," he said. Walker's concept of a Department of Science is apparently on the back burner. House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-OH) rejected this idea, Walker saying "we wanted to be in the business of eliminating departments, not creating them." There are clear signs of a changed climate on the science committee. Brown, according to a statement released today by Walker's staff, has put Walker "on notice" that next week's mark-up of a space station authorization bill might not have the support of key committee Democrats. The bill has been pulled, with the committee statement noting, "Indications are that some Democrats are uncomfortable with the balanced budget plan put forth by the Republicans, and are unwilling to cooperate with programs predicated on that budget." ############### From jgosz@puerco.unm.edu Mon May 15 20:38:27 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04545; Mon, 15 May 95 20:38:26 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12172; 15 May 95 20:38 EDT Received: from puerco.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20067; Mon, 15 May 95 17:35:38 PDT Received: by puerco.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00531; Mon, 15 May 1995 18:34:04 -0600 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 18:34:02 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: bhayden@lternet.edu Cc: jerry@lternet.edu, pi@lternet.edu, smartin@lternet.edu, James Gosz Subject: BIO award statistics Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Bruce For your information: I took data from the 1996 Budget Summary for Biological Sciences to contrast statistics from "typical" awards with LTER awards. The median annualized award size is $83,000 (Ave. annualized award is $82,000) so a LTER award of 580,000 is equivalent (in money) to ~7 typical awards. There are 2,310 senior researchers, 1240 other professionals and 990 postdocs funded with 2,880 awards. Thus, a total of 4540 professionals funded in 2,880 awards or 1.5 per award. Multiplying that times 7 (the equivalency value) gives about 11 professionals that can be compared with what is funded by a single LTER award per year. There are 2,030 graduate students funded with the 2,880 awards or 0.7 per typical award. Multiplying that times 7 gives about 5 grad student funded with the equivalent number of typical awards. There are 7500 undergrad students funded with the 2,880 typical awards or about 2.6 per award. 2.6 times 7 yields about 18 undergrads supported by the equivalent number of typical awards. I think the sites that have responded show LTER awards compare very favorably (OR BETTER) with an equivalent amount of money spent via the typical award route. That plus the leveraging that is done with LTER money, the infrastructure development facilitating other research, etc., etc., makes a nice contrast. Jim Gosz From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue May 16 09:35:35 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05615; Tue, 16 May 95 09:35:34 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25065; 16 May 95 9:35 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24245; Tue, 16 May 95 06:35:08 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09720; Tue, 16 May 1995 07:33:41 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 07:33:41 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Antarctica- ONE SMALL ICE SHELF DIES, ONE GIANT ICEBERG BORN (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Status: OR There are some interesting things going on down under. See note that follow= s. ************************************************* ONE SMALL ICE SHELF DIES, ONE GIANT ICEBERG BORN > > The disintegration of an ice shelf and the calving of a new giant > iceberg have dramatically changed the outline of Antarctica. > Satellite images relayed to Cambridge from the British Antarctic > Survey's (BAS) Rothera Research Station confirm that recent warming > of the Antarctic Peninsula is having a major impact on the ice sheet > covering this climatically sensitive region. > > The ice shelf which formerly occupied Prince Gustav Channel and > connected James Ross Island to the Antarctic Peninsula has > disintegrated. For the first time in recorded history, James Ross > Island is circumnavigable. The new iceberg calved from the Larsen > Ice Shelf and measures 78 km x 37 km, (roughly the size of > Oxfordshire), and is around 200 m thick. > > Alerted by glaciologists 9000 miles away in Cambridge, scientists on > board a BAS Dash 7 aircraft confirmed both the disintegration and > calving, and reported a dense plume of ice fragments extending > several hundred kilometres into the sea. > > Speaking from Antarctica, chief geologist Dr Mike Thomson said, > "Looking out of the aircraft window I was utterly amazed to see the > dramatic and very recent changes to the Larsen Ice Shelf. In 25 > years of Antarctic field work I have never seen anything like it." > > These observations come hard on the heels of the disintegration of > Wordie Ice Shelf on the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, also > discovered by BAS scientists. There is now little doubt that the > retreat of these ice shelves is, in the short-term, irreversible. > The retreat is a result of a warming of the regional climate by > 2.5=BFC since the 1940's. > > Glaciologist David Vaughan says, "There is no doubt that the climate > on the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed significantly over the last > few decades. What we're seeing now are changes only just working > through to glaciers and ice sheets. It's an exciting time for > glaciologists". > > Over the next months and years the icebergs will drift north under > the action of ocean currents and wind. The giant iceberg will melt > rapidly once it crosses the Antarctic Convergence and enters warmer > water. The calving of icebergs is normal within the lifecycle of ice > shelves, which may be quiet for decades between calving events. > Exceptionally the calving of one large iceberg may be a fore-runner > of a more serious disintegration. It will take time before the > implications are completely understood. > > ENDS > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Issued by the BAS Press Office > Linda Capper 0223 251448 > Bernard Moran 0223 251414 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > The BAS home page may be found at http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk and will > be/has been visible externally from 10/3/95. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ******************************* From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri May 19 12:37:45 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11271; Fri, 19 May 95 12:37:44 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08925; 19 May 95 12:37 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26722; Fri, 19 May 95 09:34:20 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA18185; Fri, 19 May 1995 10:32:54 -0600 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 10:32:54 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #70 - Key Science Committees (I) (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Over the next five months, committees in the House and Senate will draft legislation of major importance to the physics and astronomy community. This FYI and FYI #71 provide a brief background on the two kinds of bills to watch, and list the key players in this process. AUTHORIZATION BILLS Authorization bills give permission to spend money, but do not provide the money itself. In theory, an authorization bill defines what a department, agency, or program can do, and sets spending limits. For example, NSF programs were authorized for five years under the now expired NSF Authorization Act of 1988. When a new (non-appropriations) bill is introduced, it is sent to one or more of the authorizing committees. The next step is to schedule a hearing, although most bills never get to this stage. However, if the bill is sponsored by a chairman, is on an important topic, or has many cosponsors, there is a greater probability that a hearing(s) will be held. If there is general consensus about the need for legislation, a bill will be drafted by the subcommittee or committee and a full committee vote held. The bill will then be reported to the full House or Senate for its consideration, where it may be modified. This process is repeated in the other chamber. If passed in both, the House and Senate will confer on bill language, and a final vote will be held in each chamber. The legislation is then sent to the president for approval or veto. In practice, authorizing committees have lost much of their power to the appropriations committees. For example, authorizing legislation has expired for most science and technology agencies and programs. Authorizing committees may regain some of their influence this year under a new plan being advanced by congressional leadership. Authorizing committees also hold oversight hearings, in which federal and non-federal witnesses testify to the strengths and weaknesses of a program or agency. Committees which draft physics and astronomy-related authorization bills include: SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SPACE SH-428 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510, (202) 224-8172 Chairman, Conrad Burns (R-Montana) Ranking Democratic Member, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia) Jurisdiction: Science, engineering and technology research and development HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE 2320 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-6371 Chairman, Robert S. Walker (R-Pennsylvania) Ranking Democratic Member, George E. Brown Jr. (D-California) Jurisdiction: NSF, NASA, NIST, some DOE, research and development SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510, (202) 224-8115 Chairman, Pete V. Domenici (R-New Mexico) Ranking Democratic Member, Wendell H. Ford (D-Kentucky) Jurisdiction: Nuclear research and development, new technologies R&D SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE SR-228 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6050 (202) 224-3871 Chairman, Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina) Ranking Democratic Member, Sam Nunn (D-Georgia) Jurisdiction: Department of Defense, defense-related R&D HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE 2120 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-6035 (202) 225-4151 Chairman, Floyd D. Spence (R-South Carolina) Ranking Democratic Member, Ronald V. Dellums (D-California) Jurisdiction: Department of Defense, defense-related R&D FYIs #62 and 63 provide guidance on communicating with Members of Congress. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun May 21 15:04:03 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01424; Sun, 21 May 95 15:04:02 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01510; 21 May 95 15:04 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04422; Sun, 21 May 95 11:53:02 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01789; Sun, 21 May 1995 12:51:37 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA05566; Sun, 21 May 1995 12:45:56 -0600 Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 12:45:55 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: What's New for May 19, 1995 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR 1. HOUSE APPROVES KASICH BUDGET! HOW HARD WOULD SCIENCE BE HIT? George Brown calculates that civilian science programs under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee (that's everything except NIH) would be down 34.7% by FY 2000! Technology would be hardest hit, followed by energy and environment, but basic research would also decline due to inflation, which Kasich assumes to be 3% per year. Brown, ranking minority member of the Committee, contends the plan would "destroy the investment portfolio of the nation." The Senate, meanwhile, began debating the Domenici version (WN 12 May 95). Both plans would balance the budget by 2002--assuming optimistic economic projections are realized. But one Congress cannot tie the hands of the next--and seven years is a long time. 2. HOUSE ALSO PASSES A $16.4B RESCISSION BILL--CLINTON VOWS VETO! The measure would take back funds already appropriated, but not yet spent. The 235-189 vote came during the Republican euphoria following passage of the Kasich budget. The bill now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass next week. Declaring the bill "cuts people instead of pork," however, the President has promised a veto. Despite easy passage, Republican leaders admit they don't have the votes to override his veto. Among programs the President wants restored are education programs, including the Goals 2000 education program, and safe drinking water grants. 3. MULTIYEAR SPACE STATION AUTHORIZATION DERAILED BY DEMOCRATS! As we reported last week, Bob Walker (R-PA), chair of the House Science Committee, dropped plans to authorize the station through 2002 after George Brown told him not to count on support from Democrats (WN 7 Apr 95). Brown was angered by deep cuts in NASA and other science programs to satisfy the Kasich budget. He was particularly rankled by Walker's plan to gut the Earth Observing System. According to Space News, Brown charged that Walker has an "ideological objection" to EOS. A year ago, Brown threatened to oppose the station rather than accept cuts in space science when he felt Clinton's NASA budget was not big enough for both (WN 11 Mar 94). But it's easy to oppose the space station in the spring. Consider this a wake-up call for aerospace lobbyists. 4. WALKER SINGLES OUT SOCIAL, BEHAVIORAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH! The chair of the Science Committee seemed to say last week that under the Kasich plan, social, behavioral and economic research would be excluded from the 3% annual growth allowed other areas of NSF research. Worse yet, according to Committee staffers, if you do the numbers supplied by Walker, it looks like he expects to zero SB&E out. By way of explanation, Walker expressed the opinion that research in these areas had become "politically correct." Explaining his explanation, he allowed that physical sciences are a higher priority. The total SB&E budget of NSF is only about $85M, which won't do much to balance the budget. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon May 22 09:44:10 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02946; Mon, 22 May 95 09:44:09 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06646; 22 May 95 9:44 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06669; Mon, 22 May 95 06:41:49 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05545; Mon, 22 May 1995 07:40:22 -0600 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 07:40:21 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: Indy Burke Cc: James Gosz , pi@lternet.edu Subject: Re: FUNDING EMERGENCY In-Reply-To: <9505221326.AA00616@artemisia> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Indy I'm not sure how we can reply/respond to this cut. I know all of the programs were cut and there was enormous pressure on the LTER program. We might be told that were lucky to receive only a 20k cut. The cross-site competition comes from a different pot of money. First it is this year's money and it will be gone after the competition. It would not be available next year to use to offset the 20k cut. I suspect they are playing it on the conservative side since they do not know what next year's budget will be and may have to make cuts, perhaps large cuts. Perhaps the best coordinated reponse might be to ask for guidance from NSF on whether it would like us to cut infrastructure or science. jim From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon May 22 10:01:29 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03043; Mon, 22 May 95 10:01:28 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12645; 22 May 95 10:01 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06768; Mon, 22 May 95 06:57:58 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05712; Mon, 22 May 1995 07:56:30 -0600 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 07:56:30 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: Mike Allen Cc: pi@lternet.edu, scollins@nsf.gov, jroskosk@nsf.gov, mclutter@nsf.gov Subject: Re: LTER progress reports In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Mike I am writing this on behalf of the LTER sites and Network Office. I am sure you and NSF are working on our behalf to maintain the LTER program function during these difficult fiscal times. The reduction of 40k from the planned budgets for all sites for next year will require difficult decisions. We would like to know if NSF can give the sites guidance on whether to cut the infrastructure or the science that is performed by the sites. Both make the LTER program unique. Also, if the budget picture improves from your current projections, can we count on the return of the 40k reduction rather than that money going to some new effort. Jim Gosz On Fri, 19 May 1995, Mike Allen wrote: > From: mallen@nsf.gov (Mike Allen) > Subject:Continuation reports > > Greetings: > > As we discussed at the LTER coordinating committee, future LTER program > budget projections, based on a no-growth scenario (the optimistic scenario, > at present), will not allow LTER site budgets to increase annually. In > fact, based on our current budget projections, we must ask you to > submit your budget requests for Fiscal Year 96 at $560,000 per project. > Although this represents a decrease in funding levels from the current > year, such a change is necessary to allow the LTER program to remain > fiscally solvent in the future. > > Please send me your progress reports and next years budget requests by 15 > June in order to complete the required award processing in a timely > fashion. For the Arctic Lakes, Luquillo, and Bonanza Creek sites, please > submit your budget at $600,000. The funds above the $560,000 level are to > cover the additional costs for travel and cost-of-living expenses > associated with these sites. Following discussions between DEB and OPP > program managers, the principles described above are being followed. Please > contact Polly Penhale (ppenhale@nsf.gov) for specific budget guidance. > > In keeping with our long-term experiment to obtain results on linking > social, economic and ecological research, we would like to maintain the > augmentation program. Therefore, we request that the two augmented sites > submit an FY96 budget for a total budget of $1,000,000. > > In addition, to the annual progress description (10 pages maximum length), and > budget materials, we would like the PI's to include the following > information with their FY96 requests: > > A list of Principal Investigators, with their responsibilities, > collaborating scientists, graduate and undergraduate students. > > A list of publications. > > A list of data sets. > > A brief description of how your results to date have been incorporated by > agencies, planners etc. into their management plans or processes. In > particular, we are interested in being able to demonstrate how the LTER > program is important to the public beyond just the outstanding science. > > For your information, by next year, we would like you to begin developing a > list of projects funded from other sources that are occurring on your LTER > site. This is information that is continually being requested from us and > we do not have a handle on. > > For those of you beginning to work on your renewal proposals, we anticipate > level funding through the next several years. More details as to proposal > preparation will be forthcoming. However, we need to continue our > discussions as to how best to run the program in light of static (at best) > budgets. Scott, Joann and I appreciate the suggestions made to date and > value your input directly to us and the discussions amongst yourselves. > > Thank you for your patience, consideration and support of the LTER program. We > are disappointed by the fact that we can not maintain an increasing level of > funding for the LTER Program. The LTER Program, like all the other programs > in DEB, is not immune to the current fiscal limitations. > > Sincerely, Mike Allen PO/LTPEB > > > From jgosz@salado.unm.edu Wed May 24 14:47:21 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01865; Wed, 24 May 95 14:47:20 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29443; 24 May 95 14:47 EDT Received: from salado.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27479; Wed, 24 May 95 11:44:28 PDT Received: by salado.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03409; Wed, 24 May 1995 12:43:00 -0600 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 12:42:59 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Regarding the last email/memo from Mike Allen, I would be receptive to suggestions from the sites for the recommendations he suggests. I will compile the responses from sites/PIs to give an overall view and initiate a prioritized list of recommendations to send to you for review and ultimately to NSF. jim From jgosz@salado.unm.edu Wed May 24 15:05:17 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01932; Wed, 24 May 95 15:05:11 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04165; 24 May 95 15:05 EDT Received: from salado.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27588; Wed, 24 May 95 12:01:30 PDT Received: by salado.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03482; Wed, 24 May 1995 13:00:06 -0600 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:00:05 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Re: LTER Internationalization (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O interactions with New Zealand? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 14:56:59 -0500 From: Mike Allen To: Russell Watkins Cc: jgosz@lternet.edu Subject: Re: LTER Internationalization Dr. Watkins: thank you for your message. I don't know if this program will be readvertised next year. The funding is on a year-to-year basis depending on what congress decides to allocate and the priorities of various administrators. However, we appreciate your interest. I am forwarding your message to Jim Gosz at the LTER network office. He can facilitate arranging connections for you with others within the network. Sincerely, Mike Allen >Dr. Allen - greetings. A question and a brief comment for your >consumption. We very recently saw the program announcement NSF >95-87, and are wondering if this is a one time program, or if it will >be re-advertised in the next funding cycle. Obviously, the time is >much too short to put together any sort of proposal at this juncture. > >The comment: we are working on several projects related to >sustainability and biodiversity in both the natural and >"human-modified" environment. We are very interested in >collaborating with LTER researchers, and fell we can make a strong >commitment to joint proposal. I would appreciate it if you could >communicate our interest to anyone in the LTER group that may want to >pursue such a collaboration. > >Thanks very much. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Russell L. Watkins >Postdoctoral Fellow >Dept. of Geography >University of Auckland >Private Bag 92019 >Auckland, New Zealand >rl.watkins@auckland.ac.nz >phone: 64 09 373-7599 ext.8214 >fax#: 64 09 373-7434 > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From jgosz@salado.unm.edu Wed May 24 15:37:17 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02134; Wed, 24 May 95 15:37:06 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11641; 24 May 95 15:37 EDT Received: from salado.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27396; Wed, 24 May 95 11:33:24 PDT Received: by salado.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03383; Wed, 24 May 1995 12:31:57 -0600 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 12:31:55 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Re: LTER progress reports (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Here is the response from Mike Allen to my query about guidance on how to cut programs with a reduced budget. jim gosz ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 14:20:59 -0500 From: Mike Allen To: James Gosz Cc: scollins@nsf.gov Subject: Re: LTER progress reports Jim, I certainly understand your concern and welcome discussions of where the best decisions can be made for the program given the budgetary constraints. Maybe this is an issue that the LTER PI's can provide some guidance to each other and to me. My priority would be to maintain infrastructure and crucial long-term data sets. I think that we should take a long-term view. We will go through difficult times not only now but again at some time in the future. How we face these will not only help us through this period but give us a better sense of how to deal with this situation again (or often what not to do). In my view, infrastructure at the sites is crucial to being able to re-gear rapidly when the budget gets better again. It also allows individual LTER projects to retain funding from other sources and provide linkages for other scientists that can bring their own funding sources. The more we can work with other scientists and entities, the better off we will be over the long haul. There are also especially critical data sets important to the network-level studies (e.g., primary production) and some of critical importance to individual sites (such as Dave Tilman's experiment) that we should make every effort to protect. That is why I would welcome some discussion amongst the LTER PI's and some common sense of what is best for the entire network and for the long-term goals of the program as opposed to individuals or single sites. One item to remember, this is not just an ecosystem research grant to a specific group of folks. It is a unique program that depends on use of sites by many folks through long time periods. The crucial questions that you have initiated should be going long after we leave the scene. Decisions regarding when the budget improves (be it next fiscal year or at some time thereafter) will be passed on beyond me, initially to Scott and Joann. As you are aware, we will have to make awards for FY96 many months before we have a budget and well before we even have an inkling of what that budget will be. For FY95, I had no budget increment from FY94. We see no projections for increases for FY96 so at this time, I must rely on having a budget at last year's allocation. I'm sure both, Scott and Joann welcome your input as to approaches as to how to spend any new funds. I hope that this helps and feel free to continue these communications. Sincerely, Mike Allen From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Apr 25 21:03:27 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16660; Tue, 25 Apr 95 21:03:25 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab00294; 25 Apr 95 21:03 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26727; Tue, 25 Apr 95 18:02:35 PDT Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 18:02:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: dman@lternet.washington.edu, Harvey Chinn , bobmcg@u.washington.edu Subject: Digital Libraries '95: Advance program and registration info (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Preliminary Program and Registration Information DIGITAL LIBRARIES '95 The Second International Conference on the Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries June 11-13, 1995 Austin, Texas, USA For the second year, this conference will bring together a multidisciplinary group, including computer scientists, librarians, and social scientists, to discuss technical and social developments and research results in digital libraries. Conference Highlights - Papers from leading research groups on the design, implementation, and use of digital libraries - Keynote address, "Defining Digital Libraries: From Prototypes to Operational Products," by Clifford Lynch, Director, Library Automation, University of California - Expert forums featuring and encouraging conference-wide discussions with experts in the areas of - Naming documents on the Internet - Digital libraries and intellectual property - User-centered design and evaluation For information contact: Digital Libraries '95 Hypermedia Research Laboratory Department of Computer Science Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3112 Phone: 409-862-3217 Fax: 409-847-8578 Email: DL95@bush.cs.tamu.edu http://bush.cs.tamu.edu/dl95/README.html Sponsored by: Center for the Study of Digital Libraries and the Hypermedia Research Laboratory, Texas A&M University Graduate School of Library and Information Science, The University of Texas at Austin. W.M. Keck Center for Genome Informatics, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Texas A&M University In cooperation with: ACM SIGLINK, SIGBIT, SIGCAPH, SIGCUE, SIGIR, SIGOIS American Society for Information Science (ASIS) Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Knowledge Systems, Inc. Syracuse University Xerox Palo Alto Research Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Preliminary Schedule Digital Libraries '95 June 11-13, 1995 Austin, Texas Sunday June 11, 1995 12:00 N - 1:30 PM Registration (Mezzanine) 1:30 PM - 3:00 PM Expert forum one: Naming on the Internet Organized by Bill Arms, CNRI 3:00 PM - 3:30 PM Break 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM Paper session one Delivering Technology for Digital Libraries: Experiences as Vendors W. T. Crocca and W. L. Anderson, Xerox Corporation, Fairport, NY InterPay: Managing Multiple Payment Mechanisms in Digital Libraries Steve B. Cousins, Steven P. Ketchpel, Andreas Paepcke, Hector Garcia-Molina, Scott W. Hassan, and Martin Roescheisen, Stanford University, Stanford, CA Providing Government Information on the Internet: Experiences with THOMAS W. B. Croft and R. Cook, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA D. Wilder and H. Becker, Library of Congress, Washington, DC A New Zealand Digital Library for Computer Science Research Ian H. Witten, Sally Jo Cunningham, and Mahendra Vallabh, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Timothy C. Bell, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM Reception 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM Banquet/Keynote Clifford Lynch Director of Library Automation, University of California Defining Digital Libraries: From Prototypes to Operational Products Monday June 12, 1995 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Continental Breakfast 8:30 AM - 10:00 AM Paper session two Cataloging in the Digital Order David M. Levy, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA Collection Maintenance in the Digital Library Mark S. Ackerman and Roy T. Fielding, University of California, Irvine, CA Requirements for the Digital Research Library Peter S. Graham, Rutgers University Libraries, New Brunswick, NJ Management of the NHSE---a Virtual Distributed Digital Library Shirley Browne, University of Tennessee Jack Dongarra and Tom Rowan, University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Lab Ken Kennedy, Rice University 10:00 AM - 10:30 AM Break 10:30 AM - 12:00 Noon Paper session three Digital Library Research at Loughborough: the last 15 years Cliff McKnight, Loughborough University of Technology, UK User Needs Assessment and Evaluation for the UC Berkeley Electronic Environmental Library Project Nancy Van House, University of California, Berkeley, CA A Hypertextual Interface for a Searcher's Thesaurus Eric H. Johnson and Pauline A. Cochrane, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Automatic Extraction of Hypermedia Bundles from the Digital Library Hugh Davis and jessie Hey, The University of Southampton, UK 12:00 N - 1:30 PM Lunch (on your own) 1:30 PM - 3:00 PM Expert forum two: Digital Libraries and Intellectual Property Organized by Pamela Samuelson, U. Pittsburgh 3:00 PM - 3:30 PM Break 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM Paper session four Automatic Creation and Maintenance of an Organizational Spatial Metadata and Document Digital Library Charles Kacmar and Dean Jue, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL David Stage, State of Florida Christie Koontz, Florida State University Use of Z39.50 to Search and Retrieve Spatially-referenced Data Douglas D. Nebert, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA James Fullton, Clearinghouse for Networked Information Discovery and Retrieval, Research Triangle Park, NC Enhancing Usability of Network-based Library Information System---Experimental Studies on User Interfaces of OPAC and Collaboration Tool for Library Services Shigeo Sugimoto, Seki Gotou, Yanchuan Zhao, Tetsuo Sakaguchi, and Koichi Tabata, University of Library and Information Science, Japan Early Prototypes of the Repository for Patterned Injury Data Prasun Dewan, Kevin Jeffay, John Smith, and David Stotts, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill William Oliver, Walter Reed Army Hospital, Washington, DC Tuesday June 13, 1995 8:00 AM - 8:30 AM Continental Breakfast 8:30 AM - 10:00 AM Paper session five Digital Libraries and Sustainable Development Amanda Spink, University of North Texas, Denton, TX Using Online Information Resources: Reaching for the *.*'s Roberta Lamb, University of California, Irvine Digital Libraries: Issues and Architectures Peter J. Nuernberg, Richard Furuta, John J. Leggett, Catherine C. Marshall, and Frank M. Shipman III, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 10:00 AM - 10:30 AM Break 10:30 AM - 12:00 Noon Expert forum three: Studying Digital Library Use and Users Organized by Ann Bishop, U. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Name: Address: Email: Phone: Fax: Name and affiliation for badge (if different from above): Registration (Includes banquet, sessions, panels, and proceedings): Registration $155.00 Extra Proceedings $ 20.00 (after conference $25.00) Total $ ________ I will pay my conference registration by: MasterCard Visa American Express Credit Card Number: Exp. Date: Name as it appears on card: Signature: Please make check or money order (in U.S. dollars drafted on a U.S. bank) payable to "TEES" and return to: Digital Libraries '95 Hypermedia Research Laboratory Department of Computer Science Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3112 Phone: 409-862-3217 Fax: 409-847-8578 Email: DL95@bush.cs.tamu.edu http://bush.cs.tamu.edu/dl95/README.html Hotel The conference will be held at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, Texas. The deadline for hotel reservations is May 21, 1995. The Driskill 6th and Brazos Streets Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: 1-800-252-9367 or 512-474-5911 Fax: 512-474-2214 Rates: Single $65, Double $95, Triple $105, Quad $115. From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Apr 26 19:22:18 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA20764; Wed, 26 Apr 95 19:22:17 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17399; 26 Apr 95 19:22 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05633; Wed, 26 Apr 95 16:19:00 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 16:19:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: ESA Enviro. Policy Update 4/24/95 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This is the latest Environmental Policy Update from the Ecological Society of America. The ESA issues these updates on a weekly basis on their new list - ESANEWS. If you are interested in subscribing send an e-mail to: listserv@umdd.umd.edu with the message: sub esanews - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Environmental Policy Update, April 18 - 24, 1995 Compiled by the Public Affairs Office of the Ecological Society of America. Sources: Daily Environment Report, Bureau of National Affairs Inc., Washington, DC; Congressional Green Sheets, Environmental & Energy Study Institute, Washington, DC.; The New York Times, New York, NY. ==== PLEASE NOTE: While Congress takes a three week recess, each weekly update will focus on a specific, major environmental policy decision currently facing the Congress. ==== ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The Endangered Species Act (E.S.A.), which passed Congress with bi-partisan support in 1973, has become a hot target for the new Republican-controlled Congress. Many Members of Congress say that the E.S.A. has hurt the economy and cost many jobs. Proponents say that the Act has proven to be a very successful environmental law that has saved many species, including the California Condor and the Bald Eagle. In the next several months, Congress will debate reauthorization of this bill. E.S.A. MORATORIUM Since January, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) has worked to place a moratorium on new listings of threatened and endangered species and ecosystems. S. 503, which would have placed a six-month moratorium on the Act, was killed in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee after Committee Democrats threatened to block another bill until the moratorium was tabled. Soon after, though, Sen. Hutchison successfully attached an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for the Department of Defense Bill, H.R. 889, that rescinded $1.5 million in FY '95 for new listings under E.S.A. This amendment was included in the final version of the bill that President Clinton signed into law April 10. E.S.A. REAUTHORIZATION Although no E.S.A reauthorization bills have been introduced, the Act is expected to undergo major revisions over the next several months. It is expected that most reauthorization proposals will attempt to greatly scale back the power and scope of E.S.A. Many Members of Congress have expressed concern that the current E.S.A. hurts land owners through callous regulations and have said that they would like to see owners compensated for the value of land lost as a result of E.S.A. regulations. House of Representatives The House Resources Committee has set up an Endangered Species Task Force, chaired by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), that has beenconducting field hearings around the country. Critics of the Task Force complain that the witness panels have been strongly biased towards opponents of E.S.A. In March, controversy erupted when a scheduled field hearing, arranged by Task Force Member and E.S.A. proponent Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), was abruptly cancelled. Rep. Gilchrest complained that the hearing was cancelled by Rep. Pombo and Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) because many of the witnesses were supportive of E.S.A. At the end of April, when the remaining hearings are scheduled to conclude, the Committee will begin to draft a reauthorization bill. Senate Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA) has announced that he will soon introduce an E.S.A. reauthorization bill. The proposal, drafted by a group of Washington, DC lawyers representing the mining, timber, ranching, and utility industries, will differ greatly from the original E.S.A. Sen. Gorton's bill would give the authority to decide whether or not a species should be protected to the Secretary of the Department of Interior. The Secretary would have to decide if the survival of a species was worth the loss of a single job. If the Secretary determined that it wasn't, nothing would be done to save the species. It is expected that the bill would also exempt small property owners from most E.S.A. regulations and would provide compensation for lost property value due to regulations. There is also the possibility of a judicial review provision. Sen. Gorton's bill will probably be the most extreme of the expected proposals and most people, including those who are generally opposed to the current E.S.A., feel that the bill will not progress very far. Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is planning to introduce his own, less drastic reauthorization proposal later this year. Clinton Administration -In March, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said that he would like to see changes that would, among other things, exempt small property owners from E.S.A. regulations under certain conditions. Secretary Babbitt did stress, however, that "sound and objective science" must still be the basis of all E.S.A. decisions. -Recently, President Clinton has indicated that he will veto any legislation that undermines existing environmental protection. The President did not mention, though, which specific legislation he would veto. Supreme Court -The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments April 17 in a case concerning whether destroying the habitat of species listed under E.S.A. constitutes "harm" to the animals (Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon). Section 9 of E.S.A. prohibits the taking of a listed species and defines "take" to include, among other things, "harm" to a species. At issue is the validity of a regulation put in place by the Interior Department in 1975 that forbids landowners to "harm" a listed species bymodifying or degrading its habitat in a way that kills or injures wildlife. In March 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the regulation was invalid because E.S.A. used the word "harm" to mean only the direct application of force against the species and not the indirect effects of habitat modifications, such as logging. This case is very important because if the Government loses, there is virtually no chance that Congress will restore the habitat protections. A decision by the Supreme Court is not expected until this summer. =========================================================== Send questions or comments to esahq@esa.org You can visit our new Home Page on the World Wide Web (if you have Mosaic, Netscape, or similar program) at: http://www.sdsc.edu/1/SDSC/Research/Comp_Bio/ESA/ESA.html #### ------------ End Forwarded Message ------------- From smartin@lternet.edu Mon May 1 14:51:18 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07389; Mon, 1 May 95 14:51:16 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02494; 1 May 95 14:51 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09700; Mon, 1 May 95 11:47:51 PDT Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, jobs@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Plant ecologist position - Univ. of Oklahoma Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Plant Ecologist Position The Department of Botany and Microbiology, University of Oklahoma is seeking a plant ecologist for a tenure-track Assistant Professor position. This individual will be expected to teach and conduct research in ecosystems ecology and must have a Ph.D. in botany, ecology or a related field. Teaching responsibilities include undergraduate biology, ecology and a specialty course at the graduate level. Postdoctoral experience and expertise in computational ecology, rhizosphere ecology or GIS are particularly desired. Curriculum vitae, including statements of research and teaching interests should be sent to Dr. Linda Wallace, Chair Ecology Search Committee, Botany and Microbiology Department, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-0245. Screening will begin September 1, 1995 and will continue until the position is filled. The University of Oklahoma is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. OU has a policy of being responsive to the needs of dual- career couples. The University of Oklahoma is located in the heart of Norman, a small town of about 80,000 approximately 20 miles south of Oklahoma City. Norman is a typical university town with many diverse cultural and artistic activities. In addition, it is located on the cusp between two major North American biomes, the eastern deciduous forest and the grasslands of the Great Plains. This zone of tension offers a great deal to study, both in teaching and research situations. The department of Botany and Microbiology consists of 20 faculty and about 60 graduate students. It, too, is an exciting place of study with one of the highest funding rates per faculty FTE on campus. From smartin@lternet.edu Wed May 3 16:31:14 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18129; Wed, 3 May 95 16:31:13 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21126; 3 May 95 16:31 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27241; Wed, 3 May 95 13:30:20 PDT Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:30:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: epi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Opportunity for input - Science special ecology issue (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR May 2, 1995 To: LTER scientists From: Richard Stone, Science Magazine I'm contacting you because we're putting together a special issue on ecology scheduled for the July 21 issue. I'm going to focus on the following topic, and would like to get your feedback: What side of the issue you weigh in on, important articles I should read (please fax a copy if at all possible), new findings coming down the pike, key scientists I should talk to, etc. Whatever comes to mind. Thanks in advance for your help, and don't be deceived by the issue date: I need to finish a draft of the story by the end of May, so the sooner I get your feedback the better. Abstract of story: KEYSTONE SPECIES OR CRITICAL GROUPS? A number of scientists are looking at ecosystems in terms of critical functional groups, assortments of organisms which together play a critical role in ecosystem stability. They contend this is a more productive way to view ecosystem maintainence than in terms of keystone species, single species that alone hold a particular web of life together. ------------------------------------------------------------------ | Richard Stone | (202) 326-6593 | | staff writer | fax 371-9227 | | Science Magazine | rstone@aaas.org | | 1333 H St. NW | | | Washington, D.C. 20005 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ From smartin@lternet.edu Tue May 9 13:42:19 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06438; Tue, 9 May 95 13:42:17 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16419; 9 May 95 13:42 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22873; Tue, 9 May 95 10:38:24 PDT Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 10:38:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: scollins@nsf.gov, jroskos@nsf.gov, mallen@nsf.gov Subject: EMAP SYMPOSIUM - ANNOUNCEMENT (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR SPECIAL EMAP INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is pleased to announce its upcoming "First North American Workshop on Monitoring for Ecological Assessment of Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems". The Workshop will be held 18-22 September 1995 near Mexico City. It is being sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agricultural and environmental Secretariats of Mexico, and Environment Canada. OBJECTIVES The general objective of the Workshop is to exchange information on ecological monitoring approaches and technologies that are useful and cost-effective for assessing ecosystem condition and health. In addition, the Workshop will stimulate cooperation and collaboration among scientists of the North American Free Trade Agreement countries through future information exchange, networking, reciprocal training, and development of cooperative projects on monitoring for ecological assessment of forests, rangelands, agroecosystems, estuaries and coastal waters, wetlands, and surface waters. Specific Workshop objectives include: 1. Presentation and discussion of scientifically defensible ways to monitor and assess the status of, and changes and trends in, ecosystem condition, with a focus on the following issues: survey design, indicator evaluation, data interpretation strategies, and information management and quality assurance; 2. Discussion of policy-level issues associated with ecological monitoring and assessment, including: historical and current mandates for ecological monitoring, regulatory activities, international and domestic partnerships, and priority research needs; and 3. Development of mechanisms to further scientific cooperation and information transfer in the field of monitoring for ecological assessment in North America. FOR A COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT CONTACT: Dr. Sidney Draggan Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program [8205] U.S. EPA 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 INTERNET: DRAGGAN.SIDNEY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV From smartin@lternet.edu Tue May 9 13:49:26 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06481; Tue, 9 May 95 13:49:25 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19216; 9 May 95 13:49 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22941; Tue, 9 May 95 10:44:46 PDT Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 10:44:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: erg@lternet.washington.edu Subject: ESA Pres. Letter on CWA rewrite bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The letter below appeared on the list ESANEWS (the news/public affairs list of the Ecological Society of America) and pertains to HR 961, the House of Representatives attempt to rewrite the clean water act. The appeal for letters is not from the LTER Network Office, but is a part of the ESA header note. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 17:36:00 -0400 (EDT) From:esahq@esa.org To: Multiple recipients of list ESANEWS Subject: ESA Pres. Letter on CWA rewrite bill The letter below was sent to the House Representatives listed, which include supporters of HR 961, non-supporters, and legislators who are undecided. The letter from ESA President Judy Meyer focuses on Congress moving forward without giving the NAS wetlands report due consideration. Representatives and Senators also need to hear from scientists (constituents)--in particular letters that address the salient science points that should be considered in any upcoming discussions of reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. Please see today's Environmental Policy Update for background information. Should you have any questions or, if you would like assistance, please contact ESA Public Affairs Office staff (e-mail: esahq@esa.org; ph: 202/833-8773). =================================================================== 8 May 1995 The Honorable____________ Richard Armey; Peter Blute; Sherwood Boehlert; Robert Borski; Dave Camp; Michael Castle; Howard Coble; Wayne Gilchrest; Newt Gingrich; Peter Goss; James Hayes; Nancy Johnson; Scott Klug; Jan Meyers; Susan Molianari; Charles Norwood; Bill Paxon; Peter Torkildsen; Jim Saxton; Christopher Shays; Bud Shuster; Gerald Solomon; Billy Tauzin; Don Young; Dick Zimmer United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 Dear Representative _________ : The Ecological Society of America is a non-profit, professional organization with over 7,000 members who specialize in the science of ecology. As its President, I would like to address the scheduled 10 May vote on HR 961, the Clean Water Act rewrite bill offered by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster. I am gravely concerned about the wisdom of conducting a vote on such a crucial piece of legislation without giving the National Academy of Sciences wetlands report due consideration. The NAS report, scheduled for release on 9 May, will likely include key scientific information imperative to an informed policy decision. Congress itself directed the Environmental Protection Agency to commission the NAS study to aid legislators in deliberations. The NAS report should cover such vital information as methods to identify wetlands and ways to compare wetlands functions and values. Clearly, science can not provide all the answers in developing policy. But science can and must play a part in considerations of a bill that will affect the future of one of our nation's most vital resources--one that affects every American citizen. To ignore the findings of a scientific review of issues so relevant to the wetlands provisions of HR 961 is unconscionable. Sincerely, Judy Meyer President ------------ End Forwarded Message ------------- From smartin@lternet.edu Fri May 12 14:46:30 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19617; Fri, 12 May 95 14:46:28 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04612; 12 May 95 14:46 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21334; Fri, 12 May 95 11:43:03 PDT Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 11:43:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fwd: New NBS Inventory and Monitoring Web (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Subject: fwd: New NBS Inventory and Monitoring Web Comments By: DAVE MEYER@SCI SYSTEMS@TNCHQ Originally To: Dave Meyer Originally From: BIODICEN-L Distribution List Comments: This is a cross-post from the BIODICEN-L that I thought many on BENE would find valuable. -Dave Meyer The Nature Conservancy -------------------------[Original Message]-------------------------- Announcing the National Biological Service's Inventory and Monitoring Section's World Wide Web. HTTP://WWW.IM.NBS.GOV/ Access to the following data sets: North American Breeding Bird Survey Christmas Bird Count Breeding Bird Census Bird Banding Data request forms for the above datasets are available in addition to the information online. Downloadable Wildlife Monitoring and Mark-Recapture Software via our FTP site (FTP.IM.NBS.GOV). This site has a number of programs already, but will be greatly expanded to include all The Wildlife Societies' software. We accept contributions of any freeware related to Inventoring and Monitoring Plants and Animals. Information on the following programs: North American Amphibian Monitoring Program Butterfly Monitoring Research Program Biomonitoring Environmental Status and Trends National Water-Quality Assessment Program Gap Analysis Program Bird Banding Lab Breeding Bird Survey Christmas Bird Count Breeding Bird Census Future Developments: Christmas Bird Count data will be formatted similar to BBS system. Migration Monitoring Program will be announced. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship program will be online. Links to other Inventory and Monitoring Sites will be developed. A data archiving repository for monitoring data is being developed A cache of monitoring protocols will be available for downloading The Finest in Web Craft: Visit the Breeding Bird Survey Home Pages where we have relative abundance maps, trend maps, annual index graphs, tables of trend estimates, and photographs of hundreds of bird species. Further questions can be directed to the Webmaster, Brett Hoover. brett_hoover@nbs.gov 301-497-5819 From smartin@lternet.edu Fri May 12 15:10:51 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19764; Fri, 12 May 95 15:10:50 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab13706; 12 May 95 15:10 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21500; Fri, 12 May 95 12:07:13 PDT Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: jobs@lternet.washington.edu Subject: EPA Vacancy in Newport, Oregon (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Vacancy Announcement: Chief, Coastal Branch (Newport, Oregon) Western Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development United States Environmental Protection Agency ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Ecology Division ( located in Corvallis, Oregon) of EPA's National Human and Environmental Effects Laboratory will be formally advertising the position of CHIEF, COASTAL BRANCH. The position will be located in Newport, Oregon. The Coastal Branch is one of three branches within the Western Ecology Division (formerly the Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis) and each branch chief reports to the Director, located in Corvallis. The branch chief position requires: (1) a PhD in a discipline of biology, ecology, natural resources, or closely allied field; (2) a significant track record of successful personal research and publication in the peer reviewed scientific literature; (3) a successful track record of leading a complex research enterprise in the area of ecology, natural resources, or closely allied field; and (4) demonstrated experience to effectively supervise senior level scientists with diverse disciplines. The position is expected to be filled at the GS 15 level (annual salary range $70,000 - $90,000). The formal announcement is expected to be issued soon. Please contact Dr. Robert T. Lackey, Deputy Director with questions or to be placed on the mailing list to receive the official vacancy announcement. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert T. Lackey, Deputy Director Western Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 200 SW 35th Street Corvallis, Oregon 97333 lackey.robert@epamail.epa.gov From jgosz@puerco.unm.edu Mon May 15 20:38:27 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04545; Mon, 15 May 95 20:38:26 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12172; 15 May 95 20:38 EDT Received: from puerco.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20067; Mon, 15 May 95 17:35:38 PDT Received: by puerco.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00531; Mon, 15 May 1995 18:34:04 -0600 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 18:34:02 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: bhayden@lternet.edu Cc: jerry@lternet.edu, pi@lternet.edu, smartin@lternet.edu, James Gosz Subject: BIO award statistics Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORS Bruce For your information: I took data from the 1996 Budget Summary for Biological Sciences to contrast statistics from "typical" awards with LTER awards. The median annualized award size is $83,000 (Ave. annualized award is $82,000) so a LTER award of 580,000 is equivalent (in money) to ~7 typical awards. There are 2,310 senior researchers, 1240 other professionals and 990 postdocs funded with 2,880 awards. Thus, a total of 4540 professionals funded in 2,880 awards or 1.5 per award. Multiplying that times 7 (the equivalency value) gives about 11 professionals that can be compared with what is funded by a single LTER award per year. There are 2,030 graduate students funded with the 2,880 awards or 0.7 per typical award. Multiplying that times 7 gives about 5 grad student funded with the equivalent number of typical awards. There are 7500 undergrad students funded with the 2,880 typical awards or about 2.6 per award. 2.6 times 7 yields about 18 undergrads supported by the equivalent number of typical awards. I think the sites that have responded show LTER awards compare very favorably (OR BETTER) with an equivalent amount of money spent via the typical award route. That plus the leveraging that is done with LTER money, the infrastructure development facilitating other research, etc., etc., makes a nice contrast. Jim Gosz From smartin@lternet.edu Fri May 19 17:51:21 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12183; Fri, 19 May 95 17:51:20 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17456; 19 May 95 17:51 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28664; Fri, 19 May 95 14:49:41 PDT Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 14:49:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Re: Mike Allen's message re site budgets Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Please forward a copy of the LTER-supported publications you list for your site as an attachment to the proposals you submit to NSF. I try to keep a current, comprehensive list here at the Network Office. Thank you, >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications/Public Information CFR, AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> From smartin@lternet.edu Fri May 19 18:11:25 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12229; Fri, 19 May 95 18:11:23 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22342; 19 May 95 18:11 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28756; Fri, 19 May 95 15:02:55 PDT Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 15:02:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: epi@lternet.washington.edu, net@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Cc: mAllen@nsf.gov, sCollins@nsf.gov, tCallaha@nsf.gov, jRoskosk@nsf.gov, pPenhale@nsf.gov, cDahm@nsf.gov Subject: April 1995 LTER Coordinating Committee Meeting Minutes Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR M I N U T E S LTER Coordinating Committee Meeting Virginia Coast Reserve LTER Site April 21-22, 1995 IN ATTENDANCE: LTER representatives: Caroline Bledsoe (NET/Exec), Linda Blum (VCR/host), John Briggs (KNZ), Indy Burke (CPR), Carl Bowser (NTL/Technology), Dave Coleman (CWT), Charles Driscoll (HBR), David Foster (HFR/Exec), Jerry Franklin (NET/Exec), Josh Greenberg (NET/Student), David Greenland (AND/NWT/Climate), James Gosz (NET/Chair), Kay Gross (KBS/Exec), Kris Havstad (SEV), Bruce Hayden (VCR/host), David Karl (PAL), Alan Knapp (KNZ), John Magnuson (NTL), Stephanie Martin (NET), Rudolf Nottrott (NET), John O'Brien (ARC), Peter Reich (JRN), Phil Robertson (KBS), Robin Ross (PAL), Tim Seastedt (NWT), Fred Swanson (AND/Exec), Keith Van Cleve (BNZ), John Vande Castle (NET/Exec), Les Viereck (BNZ), Bob Waide (LUQ), Bob Wharton (MCM) NSF representatives: Mike Allen (Environmental Biology), Tom Callahan (Environmental Biology), Scott Collins (Environmental Biology), Roger Hansen (Polar Programs) Polly Penhale (Polar Programs) Minutes: Prepared by S. Martin (NET) COORDINATING COMMITTEE April 19, Wednesday, 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Technology Committee (Carl Bowser, Chair) New Technology Committee chair Carl Bowser (NTL) put out a call for new members and noted that he would be accessing ideas to be addressed by the Committee. His hope is to identify as members representatives of the atmospheric sciences/remote sensing, microbial scale biology, and data management areas, as well as networking activities and/or larger ecosystem scale processes. Among the ideas the group may consider: (1) a retrospective analysis of past technology supplements and how they've served the research function of the LTER sites; (2) needs identified in previous Technology Committee reports that still deserve attention, (3) identification/ discussion of emerging issues in LTER that will need technological support, (4) recommendations about site-level needs (in cooperation with a similar effort underway by the Data Managers group) and identification of larger-scale shared facility needs (genetics, isotopes, etc.), and (5) appendices documenting site status, prior support, etc. LTER Workshops (Jim Gosz) Jim Gosz and Jerry Franklin noted that, with the reduced budget for the Network Office over the next two years, the workshop priorities decided at the Coweeta meeting last fall would need to be revisited. Funds designated for workshops in the present two-year budget total $20,000 in Year I (1995) and $50,000 in Year II (1996), considerably less than the annual amounts proposed in the six-year Cooperative Agreement budget. Representatives were asked to consider priorities and note where they might be able to take advantage of meetings to attach workshops and cut costs. Among the topics proposed at or since last meeting were: - Animal/Nutrient Patch Phenomena (Frost/NTL) - Biodiversity (Waide/LUQ) - Effect of Snow Ice on Habitats & Ecosystems (Ross/PAL) - EMAP-Indicators - Food Web Dynamics (Ross/PAL and Meyer/CWT, et al.) - Hydrologic "Plumbing" of LTER Sites (Grant/AND) - LIDET (Harmon/AND - funded through other sources) - Medical Aspects of Emerging Diseases& Environmental Data (Parmenter/SEV) - Regional Biochemical Characteristics of Watersheds (Meyer/CWT & others) - Soils Standardization (Robertson/KBS) - Other Standardizations (common measurements and questions) - Trace Gas (Mosier/CPR) - X-Roots (Bledsoe/NET & Hastings/MCM-other sources) ACTION: A motion was advanced and seconded to continue to follow a theme of standardization in selecting topics for Network Office-supported workshops. ACTION: After discussion, there was confirming support for the soils workshop, for which development of standards for data management are already in process, and the biodiversity workshop, which will be an attachment to the Fall 1995 LTER/CC meeting at Cedar Creek LTER. Bob Waide recommended inviting representatives of the Smithsonian Institution sites for the biodiversity workshop if the CDR has room, and meeting participants agreed. John Magnuson said that such a random approach to workshop topic selection was problematic, and asked that the group consider developing a peer review strategy and a strategic focus. After brief discussion, it was agreed that this task would be added to the agenda for the next day's meeting. Kay Gross added that developing a link to NSF's Systematics and Collections in seeking workshop funds would strengthen the NSF "cluster" concept, and Mike Allen concurred. Indy Burke noted that the new Synthesis Center provided an opportunity to compete for workshop funds (the Center advisory board was to hold its initial meeting May 1, with the RFP to be ready by the August Ecological Society of America meeting). April 20, Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. NSF Report/Funding Projections (Mike Allen) The Office of Management and Budget is not allowing incremental increases, which means that LTER will need to operate on a flat budget through the year 2000. All divisions have also been asked to consider what adjustments they would make if it became necessary to operate under a 20 percent reduction. A possible $560,000 would likely be the maximum available per site. The only other alternative would be to begin eliminating sites. In the present budget climate, the Division can follow one of two strategies: (1) retrench and take an extremely conservative approach, or (2) try to position itself to respond to new opportunities that may arise into the next decade. NSF is committed to maintaining the site augmentations; although the funds don't presently exist, DEB has been authorized to "scrounge" for them. This aspect of the program is viewed as a long-term experiment, and the initial sites will need to demonstrate its value. Allen appealed to other sites to support NTL and CWT to help make the initial effort successful. He reiterated the Division's intention to announce an open competition for the operation of a Network Office. (At this point, NSF and NET representatives were excused while site representatives discussed approaches to writing a competitive Network Office proposal. Among several models explored was the possibility of the award going to the chairperson's home institution with a major service subcontract to the University of Washington.) ACTION: It was decided that the Executive Committee would write a proposal for an LTER Network Office. (Subsequently, it was decided that the LTER/EXEC would visit the Network Office June 6-7 to review staff duties and operations preliminary to this task.) LTER Affiliation (Bob Waide) At the fall 1994 Coweeta LTER/CC meeting, Bob Waide agreed to develop draft criteria for national and international LTER affiliation. He provided a handout containing a series of possible characteristics to consider (including such factors as site size, diversity of disciplines, willingness to provide access to legitimate users, "free" exchange of data, etc.) if the group chose to move towards a more restrictive definition. After discussion, it was generally agreed that site representatives were not comfortable with validating other sites or networks, despite recent requests for an LTER Network "seal of approval" from Hungarian and Taiwanese scientists with whom LTER has interacted. A looser affiliation based on a common philosophy or way of doing research was deemed more appropriate. It was suggested that since some research groups now charge for data (example: Canadian climatological datasets), perhaps at a bare minimum LTER ought to require of affiliates an equal free exchange of data. There appeared to be general agreement with this idea. Jim Gosz reported that after the recent ILTER East Asia conference, he was less inclined to pursue defining LTER affiliation restrictively. He reviewed for the group the recommendations and goals developed at the first two ILTER meetings (available on-line at LTERnet.edu via gopher (Under "About LTER") or the Web page (http://lternet.edu), suggesting that they already contained the basis of an affiliation "policy." ACTION: Further discussion of LTER affiliation was tabled indefinitely. International Activities (Jim Gosz) Chair Jim Gosz reminded representatives that NSF will not fund foreign research (i.e., grant funds to foreign researchers), but that it will fund joint workshops and exchange visits. LTER researchers need to make this distinction very clear to their international research partners from the outset and reinforce it periodically. Upcoming and ongoing scientist-to-scientist exchanges: (1) The Prague trip previously announced via e- mail will be June 11-17, 1995. LTER scientist participants have been identified, and efforts are being undertaken to find a data manager who can go (contact Rudolf Nottrott). (2) A supplement request has been sent to International Programs for funds for a trip to Spain and Portugal in September 1995. A potential trip to Mongolia in October 1995 is being explored. (3) A proposal for support for a November 1995 meeting in Mexico has been submitted. (4) Seven site-specific proposals to do work in Hungary have resulted from initial exchanges (Robert Waide has list). Jim Gosz suggested that sources of funds for the Hungarians or other international partners might include the World Bank or bilaterals with the State Department. Bruce Hayden reported that the Hungarians have prepared an electronic personnel directory which will be transferred to the Network Office server following the ILTER Steering Committee meeting in Budapest this summer. Rudolf Nottrott (NET) will attend to assist with Internet connectivity issues. Workshop Strategy (John Magnuson) Picking up this dialogue from the previous day's session, John Magnuson noted that short of peer review the sites need some way to determine who should be supported. A strategy or process is needed. Should it be top down or bottom up? Should workshops address the eight to ten overarching hypotheses that sites tend to have in common? ACTION: It was decided that the Executive Committee would develop a workshop policy for the larger group's review at its June meeting. 1-800 # Issue (Rudolf Nottrott) Rudolf provided a handout detailing costs and advantages of three options from which sites can choose to solve the problem of how to more economically provide long-distance dial-up to LTERnet. It had previously been reported that the funds designated in the Network Office two-year budget for this service would, at the current rate of site use, be fully expensed by this June. (The complete handout, filename "netoptn.txt", is available online at LTERnet.edu under "Basic Documentation.") The three options: (1) sites may obtain their own 1-800 numbers via American Sharecom, the company that now provides service to LTERnet through the University of Washington; (2) sites may obtain service via a local "near distance" provider by paying a monthly service charge; or (3) through larger national providers like Compuserve, American On-line or Prodigy (not all of these have full standard dial-up SLIP/PPP access). ACTION: Sites were asked to select and implement one of the options over the next two months. Graduate Student Committee (Josh Greenberg) Graduate Student Committee Chair Josh Greenberg reported on recent student activities. He has been working with Stephanie in the Network Office to include a student section in the "About LTER" Web page and reorganize the student information available on the LTERnet gopher server. Alison McGill (HFR) will organize a student social at ESA in conjunction with the Long-Term Studies Section event. Josh appealed to PIs to spur students to identify a site representative with whom he can work. Only a few sites have followed through on meeting this goal since the 1993 All Scientists Meeting. At the last CC meeting, Josh proposed that $20,000 ($2,000 each for 10 students) in Network Office funds be made available to students to provide incentive for them to initiate or participate in intersite research. The proposal was approved; however, the six-year NET proposal was not funded and the current two-year grant doesn't have sufficient funds to follow through. Josh suggested a revised version: As a catalyst to get intersite student projects underway, the Network Office (NET) grant would provide a maximum of $1,500 per student for three students ($4,500 total) to travel to another LTER site. Each student request for funds would need to include a budget justification, a letter of support from his/her major professor, a student CV, and five copies of the complete packet. Student requests would be reviewed on merit by Josh (possibly) and selected NET staff. ACTION: A motion was advanced and seconded to cover participant support from the Network Office budget for three students ($1,500 each) for travel to do intersite work. Data Managers Committee (John Briggs) John Briggs distributed the report of the August 1994 Data Managers workshop in Seattle and noted it is also available online at LTERnet.edu. The outreach-oriented 94 meeting included speakers from outside the Network. As a measure of the interest in LTER data management, organizers reported a 100% acceptance by speakers. The meeting included further discussion on updating the 1988 Minimum Standard Installation (MSI) document to the Recommended Technological Capabilities(RTC), which outlines recommended hardware, personnel, and high-speed access to the Internet. Also discussed were standards for meta data (data on data) draft documents and protocols, spatial data, and mechanisms for data publishing use of collaborative datasets. Briggs appealed to the PIs present to encourage their data managers to attend the annual workshops and be more participative. Publications Committee (Bruce Hayden) Chair Bruce Hayden reported on the recent survey conducted to identify synthesis publications produced across the Network, from individual articles to site volumes. He handed out a draft compilation and noted that he would work with Stephanie to have it posted on-line at LTERnet.edu for sites to review and make additions and corrections. Yale, Springer-Verlag and Oxford presses have all expressed interest in producing LTER cross-site volumes, including international work. ACTION: A draft compilation of the LTER synthesis publications list will be posted on-line at LTERnet.edu for sites to review and make additions and corrections. Climate Committee (David Greenland) Chair David Greenland handed out a brief report on the Climate Analysis and Synthesis Project led by Greenland and Tom Kittel, which was described in the report submitted at the last CC meeting. Lynn Rosentrater at the University of Oregon is collecting site data via Internet and is finding that the site gopher and Web servers are not very useful for finding and retrieving data. Data files are poorly indexed and often buried three or four levels down. There are few documentation files or monthly climate summaries. Most sites that have on-line datasets have chosen to make their daily data available. In one case, monthly summaries are embedded in the daily files, and are unnecessarily complicated to extract. Since files for a given variable are often broken up into individual years, downloading and concatenating files to produce a time series is very time consuming. One of the outcomes of the project will be a dataset of monthly temperature and precipitation for the sites. This data set will reside at the Network Office and should be easier to access than the present data. Other activities: The El Nino monograph published last fall was received favorably. Fifteen calls from reporters resulted when its existence was noted in the NSF Science News tipsheet, and several e-mail requests for the document were received. Doug Schaefer (LUQ) is continuing work on a review of climate work undertaken across the Network. Over the past six months, the Committee has responded to a number of requests from the sites, the Network Office, and individuals and institutions, including the National Climate Data Center and the Czech Academy of Sciences. Core Areas (Kay Gross) At Jim Gosz' request, Kay Gross conducted a review of the five LTER core areas and site activity in each across the Network. Using the 1991 site directory and some more recent site proposal summaries, she found activity in disturbance, nutrient cycling, trophic structure and population processes, foodwebs, community structure, biodiversity and controls on NPP and SOM (though these were less obvious). She considered what ideas can be generalized across ecosystems and what key hypotheses might apply across sites. Were there, say, three hypotheses that could be addressed by all sites in a non- trivial manner? Do existing hypotheses allow cross-site analyses? Key ideas included: scaling, complexity, gradients, habitat interfaces, and variability/heterogeneity Hypotheses sorted out in terms of: controls on biodiversity (productivity, history, landscape), trophic interactions, and foodwebs Discussion included consideration of whether the current core areas were hampering or helping the research, whether the current set should be added to or changed, whether there is a good "match-up" between core areas and the core datasets catalog (how do outputs match to core areas?), and whether a more explicit statement of hypotheses would help to make the relationship to the core areas more clear. David Greenland and John Magnuson pointed out that the Climate Committee had formally requested after the last All Scientists Meeting that if the core areas were revisited climate be considered as a core area, especially since the majority (if not all) sites have long-term, comparable data. Rudolf Nottrott noted that the Data Managers group had proposed data management as a core area. ACTION: Kay Gross will write up the results of her review and disseminate it to the Executive Committee and the sites for later discussion and evaluation. Network Office Tasks Discussion (Jim Gosz) Mike Allen handed out a list of Network objectives and activities or tasks under consideration for the preparation of the competition now being developed and asked for help prioritizing the work of a Network Office. Each site was asked to choose two priority items from each area (see handout). Results showed that objectives favored included: (1) "facilitate electronic communication and data sharing among the LTER sites and between the LTER Program and other scientific communities," (2) "develop linkages with other relevant long-term research programs, site networks and science and technology centers," and (3) "promote the relevance of long-term research for understanding environmental problems." Activities favored included: (1) "develop and maintain electronic and resource linkages among the LTER sites to facilitate communication and information transfer," (2) "develop publications on network activities, information brochures, and workshop reports," (3) "provide planning and logistic support for meetings of the Executive and Coordinating committees, and the ILTER Steering Committee, and maintain records of their proceedings," and (4) "facilitate cross-site research and synthesis (this item was added to the list during discussion)." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HANDOUTS: (copies will be sent with hard copies via regular mail) Criteria for Affiliation (Waide) Climate Committee Report (Greenland) Objectives and Activities of the Network Office (NSF) LTER Publication of Scientific Synthesis and Collaborative Research Progress and Recommendations (Hayden) NRC EPA/EMAP Review Prepublication (very large; sent by request only) From smartin@lternet.edu Mon May 22 23:37:18 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05371; Mon, 22 May 95 23:37:16 EDT Received: from [192.42.145.13] by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01501; 22 May 95 23:37 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11397; Mon, 22 May 95 16:51:43 PDT Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 16:51:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: vcr@lternet.washington.edu, ntl@lternet.washington.edu Cc: cretm@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, and@lternet.washington.edu Subject: NOAA Requests Ecosystem Concept Papers (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Please excuse if this is a duplicate: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The following message from Emily Sieger (esieger@hq.noaa.gov) is was forwarded to BENE: NOAA's Coastal Ocean Office has announced a solicitation for project design concept papers for integrated ecosystem approaches for these regions: Bering Sea, Great Lakes, Pacific Northwest and South Atlantic Bight. Concept papers must be received by July 14. You can obtain a complete copy of the announcement from NODC's Ocean Bulletin Board at http://www.nodc.noaa.gov or by contacting Larry Pugh by email: wpugh@hq.noaa.gov or telephone: 301-713-3338 From smartin@lternet.edu Tue May 23 13:30:26 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00214; Tue, 23 May 95 13:30:24 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20803; 23 May 95 13:30 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18638; Tue, 23 May 95 10:23:14 PDT Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 10:23:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: jobs@lternet.washington.edu, pi@lternet.washington.edu, luq@lternet.washington.edu, dClark@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Post-doc, Univ. of Puerto Rico--Apply by July 1(fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR POST-DOCTORAL POSITION EFFECT OF LANDUSE HISTORY ON TROPICAL SECONDARY SUCCESSION UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO We are seeking an individual to assist with a NASA sponsored project, "Land management in the tropics and its effects on global environment", an interdisciplinary study involving 12 scientists from the University of Puerto Rico and the USDA Forest Service. The individual will be involved in the vegetation sampling of secondary forest in Puerto Rico following the abandonment of coffee plantation, pastures, and sugar cane. In following years, the project will expand to other areas of the Caribbean. Responsibilities will include: analyses of aerial photography for site selection, contact with local landowners, supervising field surveys and data entry, data analyses, and preparation of manuscripts. Fluency in Spanish is essential. Priority will be given to individuals with tropical field experience and ability to coordinate field and laboratory work. Candidates must have a PH.D. and US citizenship. Members of under represented minorities and women are particularly encouraged to apply. Starting date: 15 August 1995. Applicants should submit, by July 1, 1995, a letter describing their research interest, a curriculum vitae, and the addresses and phone numbers of three references to: Mitchell Aide PO Box 23360 Dept. of Biology University of Puerto Rico San Juan, PR 00931-3360, USA Email: t_mitchell@upr1.upr.clu.edu Fax: 809-763 4311 From smartin@lternet.edu Tue May 23 14:10:51 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00481; Tue, 23 May 95 14:10:49 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab00579; 23 May 95 14:10 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19300; Tue, 23 May 95 11:07:45 PDT Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 11:07:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: Bill Currie Cc: jGreenberg@lternet.washington.edu, cBledsoe@lternet.washington.edu, jGosz@lternet.washington.edu, Jerry Franklin , mHarmon@lternet.washington.edu, pi@lternet.washington.edu, students@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Student Articles Online? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Bill: Josh and I agreed that the article you wrote for the last newsletter would be a nice addition to the Student section of the LTER Network Office home page. With your permission, I'd like to post it. I'd prefer to include a color photo showing you or other students at work on some aspect of the LIDET project, so if you have a slide or two I could scan in, please send at your earliest convenience and I'll return them promptly. I'll probably cross-link this with the brief description of the LIDET project that is already on-line. I think it would be interesting to include a sampling of similar summary articles by other students, showing the diversity of work they're doing at the sites. Also, once the cross-site projects get underway, it would be a good idea to have a description of those. I'll work with Josh and the next elected Graduate Student Committee chair to follow up on this. In the meantime, you might talk it up with your colleagues at the other sites. I'm copying this to the site PIs and students in hopes that they'll be encouraged to participate. Thanks! >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications/Public Information CFR, AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> From scollins@nsf.gov Fri May 5 14:09:14 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25107; Fri, 5 May 95 14:09:12 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00835; 5 May 95 14:09 EDT Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11155; Fri, 5 May 95 11:01:40 PDT Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA14080 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Fri, 5 May 1995 14:00:43 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by xrelay.nsf.gov id AA799707362; Fri, 05 May 95 13:58:07 EST Date: Fri, 05 May 95 13:58:07 EST From: scollins@nsf.gov Message-Id: <9504057997.AA799707362@xrelay.nsf.gov> To: PI@lternet.edu, DManPlus@lternet.edu Subject: NSF 95-87 Cross-Site Comparison Status: OR The attached document is ready for STIS. Title: NSF 95-87 - Cross-Site Comparisons and Syntheses at LTER and Non-LTER Sites & LTER Internationalization Type: Program Announcement/Special Competition Exposure: Public NSF Org: BIO Date: May, 4, 1995 Delete: December 1, 1995 Replaces: NSF 94-59 Special Competition DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS: June 1, 1995 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION SPECIAL COMPETITION FOR CROSS-SITE COMPARISONS AND SYNTHESES AT LTER AND NON-LTER SITES and LTER INTERNATIONALIZATION The Long Term Studies Program of the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB), Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) of the National Science Foundation (NSF), in recognition of the need to stimulate broad-scale syntheses and comparisons across multiple sites announces its intent to support proposals for Cross-Site Comparisons and Syntheses. Projects are expected to address: ~ questions or hypotheses of a long-term nature that can best be addressed through comparative studies or syntheses using combinations of LTER and non-LTER sites with long-term biodiversity or ecological data sets. The Program also announces its intent to support proposals for LTER Internationalization that will stimulate: ~ the collaboration of U.S. scientists and projects with colleagues in other countries that enhances long-term environmental research through cross-site comparisons and syntheses. The National Biological Service (NBS) Office of Inventory of Monitoring and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service expect to contribute funds or in-kind services to projects that utilize National Parks, Bureau of Land Management lands, or National Forests. OBJECTIVES Research designed to provide scientific information on understanding and managing the earth's natural resources must be based on a stable framework to assure that there is continuity to the data collection and a convenient methodology for translating the data to the decision-maker in a manner that is most useful. The present LTER program contains the nucleus of a vitally important national effort. The current set of LTER sites can be integrated with other individual research programs in the U.S. to provide a more effective framework through a network of sites and better integrated information bases. Primary objectives of this competition are to: - integrate and synthesize information from long-term ecological measurements across appropriate sites in order to help understand the biodiversity and dynamics of ecological systems, provide a baseline against which to measure environmental changes, and evaluate and mitigate the adverse impacts of human activities. National Parks and the USDA Forest Service Large-scale Ecosystem Research Sites are all examples of long-term research sites that could be used in comparative studies with LTER sites. - expand the representation of sites involved in comparisons and syntheses and enhance the spatial dimensions of current research projects to represent additional conditions/habitats so that it will be possible to determine the conditions under which lessons learned in one location can be applied to other locations. - encourage research that involves the collaboration of University scientists with scientists from various federal, state and local agencies. - expand the biodiversity data base at LTER and other long- term research sites to assess influences of environmental change. - encourage comparative and synthesis research that specifically involves the collaboration of U.S. scientists with projects and colleagues in other countries. - assist in developing long-term environmental research programs in major ecological or geographic regions world- wide. SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: The specific definition of research topics is left to the initiative of the investigators. Although each request must involve at least one LTER site, the Program emphasizes that the Principal Investigators do not have to be current LTER investigators. Non-LTER investigators are encouraged to contact the appropriate LTER Principal Investigator for collaboration and cooperation opportunities (see attached table). All proposals submitted should contain documentation affirming the LTER site endorsement of the project. Proposals can request support for one to three years and may not exceed $75,000 per year or $200,000 for the total project costs. In the case of requests for LTER internationalization support, proposers are encouraged to document significant cost sharing (in currency or in kind) by the foreign collaborator. Bilateral and multilateral collaborations are equally encouraged. If the project involves cooperation with U.S. agencies that manage lands, documentation of in-kind or cost-sharing arrangements is encouraged. Proposals will be reviewed in accordance with standard NSF merit review guidelines as described in the "Grant Proposal Guide" (GPG), NSF 94-2. The merit review process will center upon the four criteria detailed in GPG (page 13). In addition, special attention will be given to each proposal's plan for building upon on-going research, achieving broad applicability of the research results, and integrating those results into LTER project and Network data bases. Representatives of the NBS Office of Inventory and Monitoring, and the USDA Forest Service will attend the review panels to consider contributing funding or in-kind support for projects that utilize National Parks, Bureau of Land Management lands, or National Forests. Preparation and submission of proposals must follow the guidelines given in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (NSF 94-2). Note especially that there is a limit of 15 pages for the Project Description section, including text and visual materials. Letters of endorsement from the collaborating LTER sites are permitted. No other appendices are allowed. Required NSF forms are found in GPG which can be obtained from: NSF Forms and Publication Unit 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA. 22230 Tel: 703-306-1130 FAX: 703-644-4278 Ten copies of the proposal must be transmitted directly to the Long- Term Studies Program, Division of Environmental Biology, Room 635, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 postmarked no later than June 1, 1995. GRANT ADMINISTRATION Grants awarded as a result of this announcement will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," or FDP II, "Federal Demonstration Project General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee organization. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit (as referenced above). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 88-47, July 1989), for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO is (202) 783-3238 for subscription information. INQUIRIES For inquiries related to this announcement, contact Dr. Michael F. Allen, Division of Environmental Biology, at 703-306-1483 (e-mail mallen@nsf.gov). LTER PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS H.J. Andrews, OR; Frederick Swanson 503-750-7355 Arctic Tundra, AK; John Hobbie 508-548-3705 Bonanza Creek, AK; Keith Van Cleve 907-474-6927 Cedar Creek, MN; David Tilman 612-625-9922 Central Plains, CO; William Lauenroth 303-491-7581 Coweeta, NC; Judy Meyer 706-542-3363 Harvard Forest, MA; David Foster 508-724-3302 Hubbard Brook, NH; Timothy Fahey 607-255-5470 Jornada, NM; William Schlesinger 919-684-2453 Kellogg, MI; Philip Robertson 616-671-2267 Konza Prairie, KS; Alan Knapp 913-532-7094 Luquillo, PR; Robert Waide 809-767-0334 Niwot Ridge, CO; Timothy Seastedt 303-492-3302 No. Temp. Lakes, WI; John Magnuson 608-262-3014 Sevilleta, NM; Bruce Milne 505-277-5356 Virginia Coast Res., VA; Bruce Hayden 804-924-7761 The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for the research findings or their interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and related programs described here. In accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of , or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on an NSF project. See the program announcement or contact the program coordinator at 306-1636, Privacy Act and Public Burden. Information requested on NSF application materials is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be used and disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process and to other government agencies. SE Systems of Records, NSF-50, Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records 56 Federal Register 54907 (Oct. 23, 1991). Submission of the information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding these burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to : Herman G. Fleming, Reports Clearance Officer, Division of CPO, NSF, Arlington, VA 22230; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3145-0058), Wash., D.C. 20503. The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment, or general information. This number is 306-0090. OMB# 3145-0058 CDFA3 47.074 P.T. 34 - (Research) K.W. 1007001 (Environmental Biological) 1002000 (Biological Sciences) NSF 95-87 Replaces NSF 94-59 From mallen@nsf.gov Fri May 19 13:24:12 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11449; Fri, 19 May 95 13:24:11 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23875; 19 May 95 13:24 EDT Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26979; Fri, 19 May 95 10:25:23 PDT Received: from [128.150.134.18] (bio0009.bio.nsf.gov) by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA18002 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 19 May 1995 13:24:27 -0400 X-Sender: mallen@popsrvr.nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 13:24:41 -0500 To: Gucinski@fsl.orst.edu From: Mike Allen Subject: Alaskan LTER site visit team Cc: award@biology.as.ua.edu Status: O Gus, Keith, the following are the site review team. >From NSF: Mike Allen, LTER Division of Environmental Biology National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd Arlington VA 22230 Mike Auerbach, Ecology Program Division of Environmental Biology National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd Arlington VA 22230 Tom Brady, Executive Officer Directorate of Biological Sciences National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd Arlington VA 22230 possible additional guest: Hermann Gucinski Program Manager Ecosystem Processes PNW Experiment Station USDA Forest Service 503-750-7357 FAX 503-750-7424 dg: H.Gucinski:s26l05a internet: Gucinski@fsl.orst.edu Review Team: Amelia Ward- stream ecologist Dept of Biological Sciences University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 205-348-1796 award@biology.as.ua.edu John Porter-data managment University of Virginia Environmental Science Clark Hall Charlottesville, VA 22903 804-924-8999 jhporter@lternet.edu Robert Parmenter-animal community ecology Dept of Biology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 505-277- 7619 rparmenter@lternet.edu Michael James Brown- Forestry, biodiversity Forestry Tasmania 199 Macquarie St Hobart Tasmania Australia 7000 Ph 61-002-338202, fax 61-002-338292, E-mail Mick.B@forestry.tas.gov.au Home address: 211 Channel Hwy Taroona Tas Aus 7053 ph 61-002-278611 Edith Allen- plant ecology Dept of Botany and Plant Sciences University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0124 eallen@pop.ucr.edu I look forward to the visit. Sincerely, Mike Allen From mallen@nsf.gov Fri May 19 16:47:20 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12026; Fri, 19 May 95 16:47:19 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28757; 19 May 95 16:47 EDT Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28140; Fri, 19 May 95 13:40:22 PDT Received: from [128.150.134.18] (bio0009.bio.nsf.gov) by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA13508 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 19 May 1995 16:39:32 -0400 X-Sender: mallen@popsrvr.nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 16:39:46 -0500 To: pi@lternet.edu From: Mike Allen Subject: LTER progress reports Cc: scollins@nsf.gov Status: OR From: mallen@nsf.gov (Mike Allen) Subject:Continuation reports Greetings: As we discussed at the LTER coordinating committee, future LTER program budget projections, based on a no-growth scenario (the optimistic scenario, at present), will not allow LTER site budgets to increase annually. In fact, based on our current budget projections, we must ask you to submit your budget requests for Fiscal Year 96 at $560,000 per project. Although this represents a decrease in funding levels from the current year, such a change is necessary to allow the LTER program to remain fiscally solvent in the future. Please send me your progress reports and next years budget requests by 15 June in order to complete the required award processing in a timely fashion. For the Arctic Lakes, Luquillo, and Bonanza Creek sites, please submit your budget at $600,000. The funds above the $560,000 level are to cover the additional costs for travel and cost-of-living expenses associated with these sites. Following discussions between DEB and OPP program managers, the principles described above are being followed. Please contact Polly Penhale (ppenhale@nsf.gov) for specific budget guidance. In keeping with our long-term experiment to obtain results on linking social, economic and ecological research, we would like to maintain the augmentation program. Therefore, we request that the two augmented sites submit an FY96 budget for a total budget of $1,000,000. In addition, to the annual progress description (10 pages maximum length), and budget materials, we would like the PI's to include the following information with their FY96 requests: A list of Principal Investigators, with their responsibilities, collaborating scientists, graduate and undergraduate students. A list of publications. A list of data sets. A brief description of how your results to date have been incorporated by agencies, planners etc. into their management plans or processes. In particular, we are interested in being able to demonstrate how the LTER program is important to the public beyond just the outstanding science. For your information, by next year, we would like you to begin developing a list of projects funded from other sources that are occurring on your LTER site. This is information that is continually being requested from us and we do not have a handle on. For those of you beginning to work on your renewal proposals, we anticipate level funding through the next several years. More details as to proposal preparation will be forthcoming. However, we need to continue our discussions as to how best to run the program in light of static (at best) budgets. Scott, Joann and I appreciate the suggestions made to date and value your input directly to us and the discussions amongst yourselves. Thank you for your patience, consideration and support of the LTER program. We are disappointed by the fact that we can not maintain an increasing level of funding for the LTER Program. The LTER Program, like all the other programs in DEB, is not immune to the current fiscal limitations. Sincerely, Mike Allen PO/LTPEB From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed May 24 21:55:20 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03320; Wed, 24 May 95 21:55:19 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19689; 24 May 95 21:55 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00956; Wed, 24 May 95 18:49:57 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06652; Wed, 24 May 1995 19:48:34 -0600 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 19:48:34 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Forwarded mail.... Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 19:47:31 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: mallen@nsf.gov, jroskosk@nsf.gov Cc: James Gosz Mike or Joann It would help me sooth some feelings out here if I could explain why under the flat budget senario claimed by NSF and DEB, the LTER budget will go down by at least 320,000 next year (20k x 16 sites). For example, does BIO plan some new things (initiatives) that result in a tax on current programs? Also, the community thinks that the BIO policy (at least in the past) was to honor previous award outyear committments. Has that changed across the division/directorate or are the LTER awards the only ones that will be reduced? These are questions that, if answered, could clarify the situation and help NSF maintain that important open communication with its scientific community. Right now, there is concern and suspicion that tends to grow as people think up the worst senarios. jim gosz From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu May 25 08:31:20 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04469; Thu, 25 May 95 08:31:19 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24387; 25 May 95 8:31 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02452; Thu, 25 May 95 05:29:32 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09393; Thu, 25 May 1995 06:28:09 -0600 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 06:28:09 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Re: LTER budget (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR LTER budget explanation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 23:28:23 -0400 From: Mike Allen To: James Gosz Cc: jroskoski@nsf.gov Subject: Re: LTER budget Jim, the budget was flat this year (FY95) from last year (FY94). What that means is that we are spending $320,000 more this year than we have in the budget for this program. By next year (FY96), the projected spending was $40k per project beyond the FY94 (and thus FY95) budget or $640,000 more than we have in the budget.The projections for FY97 are therefore $960,000 more than current projections, etc. Since the budget remains flat from last year (at best), through FY2000, that means that in order to maintain the same number of sites, we had to freeze the budgets at last year's figure, not this year's. This year, we were able to cover the budget increase and hold the cross site competition only because several sites were funded in the prior years end-of-year funds. Tom has been able to spend at greater than the actual budget allocation by forward funding some of the sites for many years. While this is a good strategy while it lasts, it eventually runs out. We will continue to make every effort to drag additional funds if possible but in this funding climate, the likelyhood of this happening is weak. With regard to the Cross site competition and the supplements that were funded, the only reason that we can run these efforts is due to the forward funding and the availability of funds that will occur ONLY this fiscal year. The NBS and Forest Service has backed off from providing additional funds but the remaining funds do allow us to generate some new efforts such as David Greenland' climate analysis and Ed Whitelaw's economic analysis, projects that I am convinced will pay large benefits in the future for the LTER program. We also have managed to obtain help from other divisions (INT, OPP) in NSF through this competition that benefit the DEB investigators and site synthesis efforts. I do think it very important. There is a lot of interest in the community to participate in the LTER program. My guess is that this will probably be the last chance to run this program. I hope to begin mainstreaming this effort, e.g., hope that more proposals to the regular programs incorporate LTER efforts in them. With regard to out-year committments, those are allocated (check your award letters) subject to the availability of funds. The difficulty with the LTER program is that it is the only program in our division that is fully committed. That means that there is no flexibility to cut new programs to allow the existing ones to receive increments. That flexibility is what allows other programs to meet prior committments showing increases by eliminating new projects. Thus, the only way in which the continued increments could be met is to cut from ecology, ecosystems, systematics, etc. I hope that this helps. Bare bones, yes. However, if we can manage to stay flat, we will remain one of the more successful programs in Washington. Also please note. If the LTER community decides that they are willing to drop sites, in a flat budget, we can increase the allocation among the survivers. That is an option that you may wish to consider. Sincerely yours, Mike Allen >Mike or Joann > >It would help me sooth some feelings out here if I could explain why >under the flat budget senario claimed by NSF and DEB, the LTER budget >will go down by at least 320,000 next year (20k x 16 sites). For >example, does BIO plan some new things (initiatives) that result in a tax >on current programs? > >Also, the community thinks that the BIO policy (at least in the past) was >to honor previous award outyear committments. Has that changed across >the division/directorate or are the LTER awards the only ones that will >be reduced? > >These are questions that, if answered, could clarify the situation and >help NSF maintain that important open communication with its scientific >community. Right now, there is concern and suspicion that tends to grow >as people think up the worst senarios. > >jim gosz From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri May 26 10:09:29 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08310; Fri, 26 May 95 10:09:28 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24045; 26 May 95 10:09 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11099; Fri, 26 May 95 07:07:16 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA25125; Fri, 26 May 1995 08:05:54 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA07532; Fri, 26 May 1995 08:00:10 -0600 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 08:00:09 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #72 - NASA Reorganization/Cuts (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NASA Plan to Cut $5 Billion; Additional Cuts Loom FYI No. 72, May 25, 1995 Just as NASA readied itself for $5 billion in spending reductions by the end of the decade that were mandated by the White House, it now must contemplate additional cuts by Congress. Commented NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin: "The deeper cuts Congress is contemplating simply go too far, and I am committed to fighting them." He added, "all bets are off" if the additional cuts occur, as facilities will be closed and programs terminated. Goldin's remarks came as he unveiled a set of management and organizational changes that will cut NASA's civil servant employment to 17,500 by the year 2000. This is about the number of employees it had in 1961. An additional 25,000 contractor employees will also be cut. Under this "Zero-Base Review," all of NASA's ten major field centers are to be kept open, with retention of major core science, aeronautics, and exploration programs. NASA will make the $5 billion in cuts by reducing jobs, facilities, and administrative overhead. This newest cut is in addition to a 31% (or $35 billion) reduction already in progress. Every NASA field center would have a primary mission under this plan. Earth Science/Physics and Astronomy would be managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center, which would see a 28% reduction in federal and contractor employment. Planetary Science and Exploration would be centered at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which would see a 22% reduction in employment. Another three months of reviews will be necessary before the plan is finalized and incorporated in the proposed FY 1997 budget to be sent to the Office of Management and Budget. House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) and Space Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) did not comment directly on the Zero-Base Review in an issued statement. They criticized President Clinton because he "punted on deficit reduction" and NASA for "unrealistic wishful thinking." Commenting on the House Budget Resolution to cut another $7 billion from NASA's FY 1996-2000 budget, Walker said, "Republicans made hard choices because NASA, just like every other federal agency, had to take its fair share of cuts. During this process, everything was `on the table' including the International Space Station. The priorities of the Republicans include: the International Space Station, the Reusable Launch Vehicle program, basic science, and investment in cutting-edge technology." Later, Ranking Democrat George Brown (CA) commended Goldin, warning that the House Budget Resolution would "at least double" job reductions. As if all of this was not enough, some Members of Congress are talking about the impact of the House and Senate budget resolutions on the space station. Said Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chairman Larry Pressler (R-SD), "In terms of public policy, are we doing this thing right? Are we in an unhappy marriage that we should get out of?" Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) commented, "I think the draconian cuts at NASA really place the station in jeopardy." Station opponent Rep. Dick Zimmer (D-NJ) predicted, "I think we have a lot of courageous freshmen who are willing to go against the grain," a view dismissed by Chairman Walker who says, "From everything we known, we have plenty of votes on this." First indications of support for the station may be the now rescheduled June 6 mark-up of H.R. 1601, a bill to authorize funding for the space station though its completion, by the space subcommittee. The continual cutting of the NASA budget and the uncertainty surrounding the space station are no doubt having an effect on NASA's workforce. When Goldin was informed of the Republican moves to cut the agency budget he probably spoke for many when he said, "I couldn't get out of bed, I was so frustrated." A major task for his agency and those who depend on it is, he commented, finding ways to better communicate with Congress. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri May 26 17:56:36 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09965; Fri, 26 May 95 17:56:35 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27838; 26 May 95 17:56 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14247; Fri, 26 May 95 14:53:32 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00277; Fri, 26 May 1995 15:52:09 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA07746; Fri, 26 May 1995 15:46:26 -0600 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 15:46:25 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: What's New for May 26, 1995 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR SENATE PASSES BUDGET RESOLUTION--BUT RESTORES FUNDING TO NIH. After a seemingly endless series of Democratic amendments were rejected, the Senate yesterday passed the Domenici budget plan. A day earlier, however, an amendment to restore funding to the NIH, offered by Mark Hatfield (R-OR), passed by an overwhelming 85-14. The House version calls for a hefty cut in '96, followed by a freeze until 2002. What made the difference? Well for one thing, a coalition of biological societies, led by the American Society of Cell Biologists, sent "legislative alerts" to their members before the vote urging them to contact their senators. Or maybe it was just the increased concern with health that comes with advancing years; on average, senators are seven years older than their House colleagues, and 93% of them have a Y chromosome. Every inflamed prostate gland is a vote for health research. HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL: ROEMER BILL WOULD CANCEL SPACE STATION. As they do each spring, Reps. Tim Roemer (D-IN) and Dick Zimmer (R-NJ) will try to kill the orbiting pork barrel. In '93, they came within one vote. The threat is real enough that the chair of the Space Subcommittee, Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), persuaded Bob Walker (R-PA) to bring back the multi-year authorization he set aside two weeks ago (WN 12 May 95), even though he can't get bipartisan consensus. George Brown (D-CA) still insists that the station will rob space science. Supporters argue that the money saved by killing the station won't go into science. Hey! No one asked for a transfusion, they just want to stop the bleeding. SENATOR PRESSLER (R-SD) PROPOSES PRIVATIZING BASIC RESEARCH. The Chair of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee said Monday that basic research should be carried out under the free enterprise system. Most major discoveries, he explained, come from industry. On the other hand, he strongly favors EPSCOR. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri May 26 21:59:53 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10191; Fri, 26 May 95 21:59:52 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23934; 26 May 95 21:59 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15597; Fri, 26 May 95 18:58:31 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01479; Fri, 26 May 1995 19:57:09 -0600 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 19:57:08 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #73 - DOE Reform (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR House Subcommittee Considers Elimination of Energy Department FYI No. 73, May 26, 1995 "Abolishing DOE does not abolish any of the real tasks assigned to it." --Donna Fitzpatrick, former Under Secretary of Energy Over two days of hearings, the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology collected emphatic and opposing views on the abolishment of the Department of Energy. On May 16, Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary testified in defense of her department. On May 23, three former Energy Secretaries and two former Under Secretaries of Energy gave their opinions on DOE's future. Most of the subcommittee members did not hold preconceived ideas about the department's fate. Chairman Steven Horn (R-CA) explained that the hearing's purpose was to "explore the effects of several different reform plans" for DOE. If "we decapitate DOE and graft its members onto other departments," asked John Spratt (D-SC), "how much money would that save?" Tom Davis (R-VA) voiced concern over dismantling any agencies in haste, and Michael Flanagan (R-IL) stressed the need to maintain the continuity of government services. O'Leary stated that her plans for reform and downsizing, coupled with the Administration's National Performance Review, would result in a better and more efficient department. She raised concerns that dismembering DOE's programs and handing them off to other federal agencies would result in disruption, loss of mission focus, and lowered morale. O'Leary's plans include selling off such functions as power marketing administrations and petroleum and oil shale reserves. Asked her estimate of the savings from abolishing the department, she said that, if most of DOE's activities were maintained elsewhere, eliminating the Office of the Secretary would only save a few million dollars a year. She noted that a CBO assessment of eliminating the department in the Reagan years found very little in savings. Davis acknowledged "I'm not sure where the savings are, either; over and above what you're doing." Spratt questioned the costs resulting from disruption and loss of focus and time if DOE were dismantled. On May 23, former Energy Secretary Donald Hodel testified that DOE should be abolished. John Herrington, Energy Secretary from 1985 to 1989, agreed that DOE "is perfectly positioned for downsizing, streamlining, or total elimination." Hodel, who was Secretary of Energy from 1982 to 1985 and Secretary of the Interior from 1985 to 1989, argued that it would make more sense to put the energy-related functions in a department of the Interior or Natural Resources, which "has more to say about the production of energy than DOE." Herrington felt that for the billions of dollars spent by DOE on energy research, "the results are mixed at best." A third former Secretary of Energy, Adm. James Watkins (1989-1993), announced that he was not there to "advocate either the retention or abolishment of DOE." He believed that the top priority was management of the nation's nuclear complex, and whether it required a Cabinet-level office or not was unimportant. "Call it whatever you like," he said. He also noted that much of the "high-risk, costly basic research" performed by the national labs could only be done by the federal government, and "cannot be expected to be craved as money-makers" by private industry. The three witnesses concurred with O'Leary's plans to sell off activities such as power marketing administrations and petroleum reserves. While Hodel and Herrington had no qualms about shifting the nuclear safety mission to DOD, Watkins expressed reservations. All three felt that the energy production functions fit more properly into a department like Interior. A second witness panel consisted of two former Under Secretaries of Energy. Shelby Brewer (1981-1984) criticized the department for excessive bureaucracy and a cluttered, incoherent mission, but warned that it would be easier to achieve savings with all the programs in one department rather than split among many agencies. Donna Fitzpatrick (1989-1990) argued that the basic science done by the national labs was an appropriate role for the federal government, as was applied research performed for the government's own use. She added that while they could "no doubt benefit from careful trimming," each of the non-weapons labs had some function or facility that should be funded by the government, such as particle accelerators, light sources, and test reactors. She admitted, however, that DOE's essential missions "might well be managed by an independent, sub-cabinet agency." A task force of House and Senate Republicans is expected to release a draft bill to downsize or eliminate DOE on June 8. When the abolishment of DOE is discussed, one suggestion often raised is to transfer DOE's basic science programs to a new "Department of Science." This idea is a favorite of House Budget Committee Vice Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA), who appeared at the May 16 hearing to advocate his plan to combine the science elements of DOE and the Commerce Department with NASA, NSF, EPA, and the USGS. Walker, who chairs the House Science Committee, said that "after we reduce the size and scope of government we should rationalize what remains into cohesive units which address problems as they exist today." Asked about a Department of Science, O'Leary responded that it "strikes me as going in the opposite direction... toward a monolithic agency, unclear about its mission." She estimated that such a department might require 77,000 employees and an annual budget of $46 billion. She also noted that science advisors for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Bush and Clinton all opposed the idea. In a written statement, House Science Committee Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) questioned whether such a department would improve coordination and availability of funding over the current system, and whether it would provide adequate scientific support for the government's mission agencies. Another witness added that, except for NSF, the federal science programs exist to support the missions and objectives of the agencies that fund them. For DOE, the next action will come in authorization and appropriations bills. Walker's Science Committee is the department's authorizing committee, and the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by John Myers (R-IN), is the appropriations committee. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon May 29 11:23:07 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01213; Mon, 29 May 95 11:23:06 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17836; 29 May 95 11:23 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03734; Mon, 29 May 95 08:20:34 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13219; Mon, 29 May 1995 09:19:13 -0600 Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 09:19:12 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Re: Summary for the OMB (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Bruce worked up the following summary for the OMB visit this week. Please add to this story by sending data for your site if you have not already done so. We will develop an article around this analysis!! To quote Bruce: "We (an LTER site) are lots of PIs from several institutions (diverse) for little $$$/yr at reduced overhead rates making investments for future research and plowing money into local communities, supporting 2 to 3 times as many graduate students per grant , and we are bringing along a new generation of undergraduate students for research careers." BNZ HFR JRN KNZ NWT SEV VCR AVERAGE Number of PIs 12 13 11 34 12 10 25 16.7 $ (X1000)/PI/yr 27 40 40 9 15 10 12 21.9 Number of Institutions 4 8 7 9 3 1 8 5.7 Institutional Overhead rate 37 8 26 27 26 7 23 27.9 % of budget spent on infrastructure 12 30 10 10 8 28 25 17.6 % of budget spent locally at site 80 30 70 100 100 100 30 72.9 Grad. students 19 12 10 11 8 20 16 13.7 Undergrad students 4 20 4 13 10 20 8 11.3 From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Jun 1 00:59:24 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03343; Thu, 1 Jun 95 00:59:23 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27844; 1 Jun 95 0:59 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19871; Wed, 31 May 95 21:57:39 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13315; Wed, 31 May 1995 22:56:17 -0600 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 22:56:17 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF Congressional Budget Update (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NSF Congressional Budget Update As the Memorial Day weekend begins, we reach a particularly crucial time in the Congressional budget process. With the House and Senate now having passed their own versions of a seven year balanced budget plan, the authorization and appropriations committees will begin moving their own legislation that will result in actual spending plans for NSF in FY 1996. First, how did NSF fare in the budget resolutions? Recognize the budget resolutions contain assumptions -- assumptions that are not binding on the authorizing or appropriations committees. Nevertheless, these assumptions are important indicators of overall Congressional priorities and will influence, at some level, the work of the authorization and appropriations committees. Within the non-binding assumptions of the House and Senate budget resolutions, and when viewed over the long term, NSF probably did better than many other R&D activities. Nevertheless reductions for NSF below the FY 1995 level are presumed in these plans. In addition, even though growth is projected for NSF in the House budget resolution in the outyears -- it is still well below the expected inflation rate. Where are we in the NSF authorization process? With the guidance contained in these resolutions, the House Basic Research Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Steven Schiff (R-NM), is expected to mark up an NSF reauthorization bill on or about June 8. From all indications, the NSF bill will track closely with the overall NSF numbers assumed in the House budget resolution -- meaning NSF would be authorized at about $3.1 billion in FY 1996 and, perhaps growing to $3.2 billion in FY 1997 and FY 1998 -- should the subcommittee elect to mark up a multi-year bill. The President's request for FY 1996 for NSF is $3.36 billion. What about the appropriations process? On the appropriations front, the situation is likely to be even more constrained. The Appropriation Subcommittee chairmen are now working to develop the so-called "602B allocations." This is the allotment of resources each appropriation subcommittee will get for FY 1996, and their funding decisions for each agency or major program must be made within the allocation provided. In NSF's case, the appropriations subcommittee is the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, which is chaired by Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA). From discussions with committee staff, it is clear the subcommittee is bracing for an allocation that is substantially below the President's request for the subcommittee and LESS than the allocation it had in FY 1995. An additional complication facing the subcommittee is that just about every agency under its jurisdiction -- from HUD to VA to EPA to NSF -- is requesting an increase over its FY 1995 level. We expect the House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee to mark up about the third week in June, with floor action to follow after the July 4th recess. The table below provides information on NSF's major programs for FY 1995 and the request for FY 1996. Acc't FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1996 FY 1996 FY 1996 Plan Request House Senate Conf Research 2,280 2,454 Education 606 599 ARI* 118 100 MRE** 126 70 S&E 124 127 Reloc 5 5 OIG 4 4 Total 3,264 3,360 * Academic Research Infrastructure -- a total of $250 million was appropriated in FY 1995, however $132 million has been proposed for rescission. ** Major Research Equipment Prepared by Joel Widder, Acting Director, NSF Office of Legislative and Public Affairs May 25, 1995 From jgosz@puerco.unm.edu Thu Jun 1 22:57:31 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00391; Thu, 1 Jun 95 22:57:30 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28438; 1 Jun 95 22:57 EDT Received: from puerco.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26382; Thu, 1 Jun 95 19:56:53 PDT Received: by puerco.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00820; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:55:26 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:55:24 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #74 - OTA (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Pessimistic Outlook for Office of Technology Assessment FYI No. 74, June 1, 1995 Hopes that Senator Connie Mack (R-Florida), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, has had a change of heart about abolishing the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) seem to be dwindling. On May 26, Mack held a hearing on OTA and the General Accounting Office (GAO), and he gave little indication that he is straying from Republican plans to eliminate this congressional support agency. The Office of Technology Assessment has a $22 million budget, a fraction of the current $2.4 billion legislative branch appropriation. Senate leaders want to cut the legislative budget by $200 million in FY 1996, for a total savings of $1.4 billion between FY 1996-2002. The Senate Budget Resolution recommends a 25% cut in GAO's budget, and a reduction in Senate committee staff by 15%. The resolution also calls for a 25% spending reduction for the Executive Office of the President. House leaders are proposing similar cuts. Mack received testimony from three senators supportive of OTA -- Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), and Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts.) Mack responded by characterizing OTA's work in favorable terms. In response to unvoiced concerns that he finds fault with OTA's work, he said, "that is not where I am coming from." Mack's concerns instead centered on two points. The first was that some of OTA's research is performed elsewhere. He also criticized OTA for doing research on topics that did not have a strictly technological orientation. This criticism was echoed by Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah.) OTA Director Roger C. Herdman countered these criticisms, but he is in a difficult position as his agency works directly for, and is controlled by, Congress. OTA reports are substantially different from that done by GAO, the Congressional Research Service, Congress and the Executive Branch, or other interests. In 1994, OTA produced 51 reports, and testified 38 times before congressional committees. Further information about OTA can be found on its Homepage at http://www.ota.gov See FYI #75 regarding a recent OTA report. The Washington Post reports that after the hearing, Mack said, "I wouldn't go that far" when asked if OTA would be eliminated. At the same time, he said that none of the testimony had changed his mind, adding, "They're arguments that I've heard before." If there is any ray of hope, it may lie along the lines of the strategy being employed by GAO. This agency, with a current budget of $449 million, is looking at a 25% budget reduction in FY 1996. GAO Director Charles Bowsher did not dispute this cut, but rather its timing, asking for two years to make this reduction. This approach appeared to have Mack's support. OTA Director Herdman indicated his willingness to accept a budget cut, and institute other economies. Whether this will be enough to win over Mack, and his House counterpart, Rep. Ron Packard (R-California), is yet to be seen. ############### From jgosz@puerco.unm.edu Thu Jun 1 22:57:55 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00396; Thu, 1 Jun 95 22:57:54 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28490; 1 Jun 95 22:57 EDT Received: from puerco.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26386; Thu, 1 Jun 95 19:58:00 PDT Received: by puerco.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00826; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:56:27 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:56:24 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #75 - OTA Report on Space Cooperation (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Walker Praises New OTA Report on US-Russian Space Activities FYI No. 75, June 1, 1995 Even as the House and Senate voted to pass budget resolutions with provisions to abolish the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (see FYI #74), House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) praised a May 15 OTA report for its review of US-Russian space partnerships. Of the 144-page report, "U.S.-Russian Cooperation in Space," Walker said, "The Committee is delighted to have such a valuable study to use in weighing our evolutionary space partnership with Russia. The OTA report covers the range of significant concerns that supporters and opponents of space development now face working with Russia...." OTA has planned future reports on the US launch industry, but their status is questionable in light of OTA's uncertain future. The OTA report "surveys the potential benefits and drawbacks of expanded cooperation with Russia and other nations of the FSU [former Soviet Union] in space activities.... Such cooperation has begun to return scientific, technological, political, and economic benefits to the United States. However, the political and economic risks of cooperating with the Russians are higher than with the United States' traditional partners in space." According to the report, "NASA is exploring cooperative space research and development with Russia in virtually every programmatic area." In addition to Russia's technical contributions, foreign policy benefits may accrue from NASA's purchases of almost $650 million in goods and services. This may assist in the stabilization of the Russian economy and preserving employment for some Russian engineers and technicians. Yet Russia's "severe economic hardships" pose the risk that its government and enterprises may not be able to perform as necessary. OTA recommends the following elements as critical to the success of any cooperative space partnership: successful management of large, multilateral projects; progress in stabilizing Russia's political and economic institutions; preservation of Russian space enterprises; awareness and management of cultural and institutional differences; Russian adherence to missile-technology controls; and liberalization of export control, customs, and finance laws. With the exception of the space station, OTA notes that "Russian contributions are not in the `critical path' to completion of key projects." While Russian involvement in the space station "promises to increase program flexibility and capability," the report warns that "placing the Russian contribution in the critical path...poses unprecedented programmatic and political risks." In addition to NASA's cooperative programs, the report says, "most large U.S. aerospace companies are pursuing some form of joint venture or partnership with Russian concerns,...[but] it is too early to tell how successful they will be." OTA advocates reform of U.S. export-control laws to help such efforts, but finds no consensus on how expanded cooperation with Russia will affect the U.S. aerospace industry. The report, OTA-ISS-618, can be purchased from the Government Printing Office. Contact the Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC. 20402-9328; (202) 512-0132; fax: (202) 512-2250; or it can be accessed via the WorldWideWeb at http://www.ota.gov ############### From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Sat Jun 3 09:18:31 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04174; Sat, 3 Jun 95 09:18:30 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11010; 3 Jun 95 9:18 EDT Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04174; Sat, 3 Jun 95 06:18:32 PDT Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10896; 3 Jun 95 9:17 EDT Received: from [128.143.42.44] (macted.stat.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04170; Sat, 3 Jun 95 09:17:09 EDT Date: Sat, 3 Jun 95 09:17:08 EDT Message-Id: <9506031317.AA04170@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: pi@lternet.edu From: Bruce Hayden Subject: John Hobbie's recent e-mail Status: OR John, John Porter told me yesterday that Mike Allen was calling for review of WWW for sites as part of the mid-term site reviews. So yes it is new. Not exactly fair to ARC as you have not had any warning on this as an official part of the mid-term review. Review panel memebers are encouraged to use the site's WWW as documentation for pre-visit study of the site. I think this is good for the long-run but hard on ARC this time around. As we just had a meeting in late April at which Mike was present, it would seem it that that would have been the right time to confer with the Network CC to put in motion using WWW as part of mid-term site review. Jim, We might want to cover this topic at the Exec. Meeting this week. Bruce From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Jun 3 12:04:07 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04392; Sat, 3 Jun 95 12:04:06 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27036; 3 Jun 95 12:04 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04433; Sat, 3 Jun 95 09:03:46 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09403; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 10:02:25 -0600 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 10:02:25 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #76 - Key Science Bills (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Major Science Policy and Funding Bills Move to the Front Burner FYI No. 76, June 2, 1995 The first five months of the 104th Congress are going to seem like a walk in the park compared to what Congress will tackle when it returns next week from its Memorial Day recess. Passing thirteen appropriations bills has never been easy; this year it will be even more confrontational. Add to this a host of authorization bills to be passed. It is going to be a long summer and fall, and that is even before the president picks up his veto pen. One need look no further than next week's schedule of the House Committee on Science to get an indication of what lies in store for returning Members. On Wednesday, Rep. James Sensenbrenner's (R-WI) subcommittee will mark-up the International Space Station Authorization Act. The next day, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's (R-CA) subcommittee will mark-up the DOE R&D Authorization Act, the NOAA Authorization Act, and the EPA R&D Authorization Act. An NSF reauthorization bill is being drafted, and parallel efforts in the Senate are underway. Unknown is the degree of cooperation committee Democrats will provide; Rep. George Brown (D-CA) caused the earlier postponement of the space station bill because of his concern about Republican spending plans. The bipartisan spirit that was a trademark of this committee seems to be waning. While science-related authorization legislation has not played a large role in previous Congresses, Republican leaders want to use this mechanism to set policy and spending caps before the main event gets underway: the drafting of the appropriations bills. The outlook on the appropriations front is even more unsettled. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have been traditionally insulated from politics because of their huge work loads and the absolute necessity of passing their bills on time. This is largely no longer true in the House. First steps are now being taken in these committees to draft legislation. Tentative allocations to each of the House thirteen appropriations subcommittees are out (with final allocations to be determined following agreement between the House and Senate on a FY 1996 Budget Resolution.) The House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies (NSF and NASA), Energy and Water Development (DOE), and Commerce, Justice, State (NIST) appropriations subcommittees all face cuts in their FY 1996 allocations. New starts are in particular peril since House Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Livingston (R-LA) does not want subcommittees to make small cuts in programs to meet spending targets, instead favoring termination of programs that are unlikely to survive in the future budget climate. There will be additional cuts if Congress and President Clinton are unable to agree on reductions in this year's spending. The outlook for NSF is better than for most of the R&D budgets if the House VA, HUD subcommittee follows the recommendations in the House Budget Resolution. NASA spending would be further reduced, although the space station would be funded in full. The resolution calls for the abolishment of the Departments of Energy and Commerce and the Office of Technology Assessment, so what will happen with these appropriations is anyone's guess. ############### From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Jun 5 12:53:08 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08472; Mon, 5 Jun 95 12:53:07 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09987; 5 Jun 95 12:53 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11598; Mon, 5 Jun 95 09:48:06 PDT Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 09:48:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: epi@lternet.edu, lmer@lternet.edu Subject: National Center for Ecological Synthesis and Analysis (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR > > ------ begin of pr9539.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > Title : NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FUNDS NEW ECOLOGY CENTER > Type : Press Release > NSF Org: OD / LPA > Date : June 1, 1995 > File : pr9539 > > > Tarri Joyner June 1, 1995 > (703) 306-1070 NSF PR 95-39 > > NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION > FUNDS NEW ECOLOGY CENTER > > In order to advance our understanding of ecology by > organizing and synthesizing ecological information so that > it will be useful to scientists, policymakers, and resource > managers, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has > established a National Center for Ecological Analysis and > Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa > Barbara (UCSB). Through a cooperative agreement with NSFs > division of environmental biology, the new center has been > awarded an estimated 10 million dollars over the next five > years. > Headed by the interim director and principal > investigator, UCSB's William Murdoch, NCEAS opened today. > The center is intended to provide educational opportunities > for present and future generations of ecologists in the > latest analytical and computational technologies, facilitate > the development of new analytical tools and models, and make > ecological data available to a larger community of potential > users. > > > "Our goal in establishing the NCEAS is to create the > opportunity for ecologists to work together on basic and > applied research in a state-of-the-art facility. The NCEAS > will foster interactions among researchers by bringing > people together to solve problems using data that already > exist," says Scott Collins, program director in NSF's > ecology program, which funds the new center. "The center > will not be a source of new data, but rather will be > involved in the synthesis and analysis of existing data." > > Continues Collins, "Over the past ten years or so, > ecologists have made great strides in acquiring high quality > and detailed ecological data from field and laboratory > experiments. Computer modeling has also played a key role > in the development of ecological concepts and theory." But > ecologists felt that what was missing was the opportunity to > step back and synthesize data derived from these basic > studies in ecology. > > NCEAS will provide facilities and support for > individual scientists to produce models, comparative > analyses, and synthesis publications. The center will also > offer short courses on new analytical methodologies and > mathematical techniques. Along with encouraging both > graduate and undergraduate students to participate in a > variety of center functions, NCEAS will support post- > doctoral fellows. > > -end- > > > > Press releases and other information are now available > electronically on NSFnews, a free service available via the > Internet. To subscribe to NSFnews send an e-mail message to > listmanager@nsf.gov. In the body of the message (not the > subject line) type the words "subscribe nsfnews" and then > type your name (not an e-mail address). For example: > subscribe nsfnews James Smith. The system will reply with a > confirmation via e-mail. For additional information about > NSFnews send another e-mail message to listmanager@nsf.gov > and in the body of the message type the word "help". > > > ------ end of pr9539.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > From jgosz@lternet.washington.edu Mon Jun 5 15:04:14 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09148; Mon, 5 Jun 95 15:04:13 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08509; 5 Jun 95 15:04 EDT Received: from dirt.lternet.washington.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12575; Mon, 5 Jun 95 11:59:50 PDT Received: by dirt.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02284; Mon, 5 Jun 95 11:59:57 PDT Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 11:51:21 -0700 (PDT) From: James Gosz Subject: Synthesis research opportunities To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I have just been briefed (informally) about the recent Advisory Board meeting for the Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (CEAS). Soon there will be an email announcement of opportunity for proposals dealing with synthesis. Two of the focal areas that may be of interest to the LTER community are: temporal and spatial dynamics ecosystem management We anticipate that the first proposal deadline will be at the end of the summer and a second deadline at the end of the year. This represents an opportunity to fund some of our synthesis ideas and I hope we can take advantage of it. We will forward the announcement as soon as we receive it. Get those thinking caps on!!! The Exec. Comm. will discuss this opportunity this week in Seattle and their thoughts will be passed on as well. Jim Gosz From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Jun 9 14:41:22 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA24814; Fri, 9 Jun 95 14:41:21 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09209; 9 Jun 95 14:41 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09360; Fri, 9 Jun 95 11:35:56 PDT Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 11:35:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: National Biological Service (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI, earlier this year the AIBS sent a letter to the members of the House and Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittees regarding the proposed elimination of the National Biological Service outlining the importance of the research conducted through the NBS to the scientific community. The Institute emphasized that "without credible, peer-reviewed data, land-use policies would be subject to short-term considerations that are often politically fashionable, but not necessarily scientifically sound. By incorporating all DOI research on our nation's biological resource capital into one agency, the NBS serves to eliminate duplicative efforts while providing objective analysis on how best to understand, manage, and evaluate the effectiveness of management protocols. Abolition of the agency would serve to disengage the coordination of efforts, and could lead to DOI policy decisions based on incomplete science." To view a full copy of the letter, go to the AIBS gopher (address below) and check the folder "AIBS Legislative Actions" within the main menu folder "Legislative Activities". Resources: NBS WWW Page http://www.its.nbs.gov/nbs/ AIBS Gopher gopher://aibs.org Thomas (Congressional Home Page) http://thomas.loc.gov/ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jun 9 22:26:55 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25810; Fri, 9 Jun 95 22:26:54 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22127; 9 Jun 95 22:26 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12221; Fri, 9 Jun 95 19:25:22 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA14827; Fri, 9 Jun 1995 20:24:04 -0600 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 20:24:04 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #77 - Space Station Authorization (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 77, June 9, 1995 Space Station Authorization Bill Heads to House Science Committee In what House space subcommittee chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) called "an extremely healthy sign" for the space station, the subcommittee on Wednesday voted down, by 18-3, an amendment to cancel the program. The amendment was offered during the mark-up of H.R. 1601, a multi-year authorization bill for the program. The bill (if it makes its way through the rest of the legislative process) would authorize the space station program through completion of its assembly. Authorizing legislation, while providing congressional approval and spending ceilings for a project, does not provide the actual funding. That is done through the appropriations process. The bill would authorize a total of $13.141 billion for completion of the station, with the limitation that the program not exceed $2.121 billion in any one fiscal year. While several subcommittee Democrats expressed reservations that the multi-year authorization would eliminate congressional oversight, Sensenbrenner made it clear that the bill mandated strict reporting requirements and NASA's staying on time and on budget. While this is only the first phase in the authorization process (or, as more than one subcommittee member noted, "one small step,") Sensenbrenner said that it sends a signal of support for the station, both to the appropriators and to the project's international partners. The bill now goes to the full House Science Committee, then to the House floor. It would then need to be reconciled with a Senate-passed version, but the Senate often does not draft authorizing legislation. Stating that the space station would not "stand or fall depending on whether this bill gets to the President's desk," Sensenbrenner seemed content at getting his subcommittee's support for the project on record. However, among some Democrats, that support was qualified. George Brown (D-CA), former chair of the full House science committee, has always been a supporter of the space station, but not at the expense of the rest of NASA's programs. As in previous years, he raised concerns that NASA's shrinking budget might force the agency to sacrifice other major programs. Brown noted that NASA's draft response to H.R. 1601 was support for the multi-year space station authorization "within the context of" an overall stable, balanced multi-year NASA budget. He warned that he might not support the bill in full committee if it was not amended to protect the balance of NASA's programs. The defeated vote to cancel the station was offered by Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN), a station foe who has unsuccessfully tried such amendments in past years. Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) succeeded in getting an amendment passed stating that the station "represents an important component of an adequately funded civil space program which balances human space flight with science, aeronautics, and technology." With Brown's support, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) tried to insert an amendment specifying that if NASA's total budget dropped below $14 billion annually, the station program would not be funded. Sensenbrenner and others argued that even the President's projected budgets for FY 1997 and beyond show NASA receiving below $14 billion. The amendment was defeated, but Brown and Jackson Lee hope to try a similar amendment in the full committee. No date has yet been set for the full committee mark-up. Even though the station has a long way to go in the authorization and appropriations processes, so far things look promising. Although avid budget hawks will most likely try to kill it in floor votes, it is of note that the House Budget Resolution provides full funding for the station's completion. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) is a station fan, as are House Budget Committee Chair John Kasich (R-OH) and Vice Chair Robert Walker (R-PA). Walker also chairs the House Science Committee. While the chair of the station's authorizing committee in the Senate, Larry Pressler (R-SD), has expressed second thoughts about his support, the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee chairs in both the House and Senate are space station advocates. Mark-up of the House VA/HUD appropriations bill will occur on June 22. The full House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to mark-up the bill on July 11, and it will go to the House floor on July 19. The Senate mark-ups will then follow. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jun 9 17:51:45 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25448; Fri, 9 Jun 95 17:51:44 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21289; 9 Jun 95 17:51 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10524; Fri, 9 Jun 95 14:49:29 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13398; Fri, 9 Jun 1995 15:48:12 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA03765; Fri, 9 Jun 1995 15:42:23 -0600 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 15:42:22 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: What's New for Jun 09, 1995 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR 1. ENERGY CRISIS: HOUSE REPUBLICANS REVEAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE DOE. Six months after enactment of the DOE Abolishment Act, the Energy Department would become the Energy Program Resolution Agency; it would have three years to dismantle itself. The nuclear weapons labs, Sandia, Los Alamos and Livermore, would be transferred to a civilian Defense Nuclear Programs Agency in the Pentagon, which would also be responsible for cleanup from weapons production. The civilian nuclear waste program would go to the US Geological Survey (apparently they have forgotten that they were calling for abolishment of USGS). An Energy Laboratory Facilities Commission would decide which programs and laboratories to shut down. GOP leaders in both the House and Senate praised the plan, which was prepared by a task force headed by freshman Todd Tiahrt (R-KS). 2. NUCLEAR MELTDOWN: ENERGY AUTHORIZATION BILL HITS NUCLEAR LABS. The House Energy Subcommittee approved an authorization yesterday that cuts $31M from nuclear physics--with all of it coming from the five university-based accelerators: MIT, Yale, Texas A&M, University of Washington, and North Carolina. An effort by Vern Ehlers (R-MI) to restore the funds failed on a tie vote. Even if the bill passes the House, it is only an authorization and the Senate is not in the habit of passing authorization bills. 3. SPACE SICKNESS: A MULTI-YEAR SPACE STATION AUTHORIZATION BILL passed the House Space Subcommittee on Wednesday. Bob Walker (R- PA), Science Committee chair, and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Space Subcommittee chair, called the bluff of Democrats (WN 26 May 95) who had threatened to withhold support. Moreover, an amendment by Tim Roemer (D-IN) to kill the station was crushed 3-18. The bill takes $2.12B a year for the station off the budget table through 2002. The effect would be to strangle space science. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jun 9 22:31:09 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25822; Fri, 9 Jun 95 22:31:08 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22535; 9 Jun 95 22:31 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12230; Fri, 9 Jun 95 19:27:36 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA14850; Fri, 9 Jun 1995 20:26:19 -0600 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 20:26:19 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #78 - DOE Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Reshaping the Department of Energy: Authorization Bill Advances Important legislation was drafted yesterday which could reshape the research portfolio of the Department of Energy. The House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment marked-up the "Department of Energy Civilian Research and Development Act of 1995," which will guide DOE in FY 1996. At a June 8 pre-hearing briefing, subcommittee chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said, "Our budget figures represent the commitment made to the American people to balance the budget within seven years." Funding for DOE programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction would be cut $1.361 billion from current year funding, or $1.709 billion less than the administration's FY 1996 budget request. This authorization bill does not provide actual DOE funding, which will be contained in the FY 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. Republican leaders want to use authorization bills to set policy and spending ceilings, which the appropriations committee should then follow. Chairman John Myers' (R-IN) subcommittee will mark up their appropriations bill on June 13. The subcommittee calculates that under this bill, Basic Energy Sciences funding would increase 12% or $80 million from $663 million in FY 1995 to a maximum of $743 million in FY 1996. General Science and Research funding would decline 3% or $27 million from $796 million in FY 1995 to a maximum of $769 million in FY 1996. Biological and Environmental Research funding would decline 17% or $64 million from $366 million in FY 1995 to a maximum of $302 million in FY 1996. So where does the proposed $1.361 billion in savings come from? More than 55% results from dramatic cuts in what Rohrabacher termed "corporate welfare." He identified large corporations receiving DOE funding, and said, "At a time of limited revenue, the private sector, especially big corporations, should not expect their research to be subsidized by the taxpayers." An additional 12% comes from "streamlining bureaucracy." The remaining 33% comes from reduced funding for "non mission related programs." Rohrabacher took aim at what he called "trendy science that is propped up by liberal/left politics rather than good science," singling out for special criticism global warming. Regarding this he said, "it is assumed at best to be unproven and at worst to be liberal clap trap...." Rohrabacher concluded his briefing with the following statement: "Our goal in this budget is to get BACK TO THE BASICS, funding essential productive scientific research which cannot be done elsewhere in the private sector, research that will produce quality scientific results in order to improve our lives today, and future generations. And notwithstanding the liberal doomsayers who will scream and carry on at the death of their nonsensical programs, we have achieved our goal. This budget meets our commitment to a balanced budget while aggressively funding fundamental basic scientific research." FYIs #79 and #80 will report on the mark up hearing and the bill's provisions. ############### From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Jun 12 21:48:09 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03753; Mon, 12 Jun 95 21:48:08 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24663; 12 Jun 95 21:48 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24163; Mon, 12 Jun 95 18:47:23 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 18:47:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: epi@lternet.washington.edu, dman@lternet.washington.edu Cc: net@lternet.edu, lmer@lternet.washington.edu Subject: NSF-National Biological Service MOU Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Below is the text of the recent memorandum of understanding reached between NSF and the National Biological Service, obtained from Mike Allen at DEB via fax. I have also posted it on the LTERnet gopher under About LTER--> National and International Activities-->National Collaborations, and will include a link via the home page. >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Stephanie Martin University of Washington PH:206/543-6764 Publications/Public Information CFR, AR-10 FAX: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Seattle, WA 98195 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu (Internet) >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between the NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SERVICE This memorandum of understanding (MOU) is made by and between the National Biological Service (NBS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), an independent governmental agency. I. PURPOSE The purpose of this MOU is to recognize the mutual interests of the NSF and NBS and to establish an outline of responsibilities wherein the NBS and the NSF, through the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB), may engage in collaborative activities of mutual benefit. Further, this MOU provides a framework for the NSF and NBS to develop partnerships in research, information exchange and communication, and the enhancement of the taxonomic expertise of the United States. This MOU is made and entered into between the United States Department of Interior National Biological Service, hereinafter referred to as NBS, and the National Science Foundation, hereinafter referred to as NSF. II. STATEMENT OF MUTUAL INTERESTS AND MUTUAL BENEFITS The mission of the NBS is to work with others to provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to manage the Nation's biological resources. Among the purposes of the NBS are to: (1) perform research in support of biological resources management, (2) inventory, monitor, and report on the status and trends of the Nation's biotic resources; and (3) provide leadership in dissemination and analysis of biological information to help assure effective use and conservation of the Nation's natural resources. The NBS also provides research information on a wide array of protected lands such as National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. The NSF advances scientific and engineering progress in the United States by funding research and education. It does this through grants, contracts and cooperative agreements to colleges, universities, and other institutions in all parts of the United States. The Foundation also supports research by small business, aids in cooperative research between universities and industry, and enhances U.S. participation in international scientific efforts. The NSF and NBS share the common interests of understanding the Nation's biological resources and increasing integration of basic and applied research to better inform management and policy decisions involving those resources. The NBS and NSF enter into this MOU to reflect their shared commitment to communicating scientific information broadly, promoting research, interacting with other national and international research programs, and developing the human resources needed to further our understanding of the Nation's biological resources. In consideration of the above premises, the parties agree as follows: III. THE NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SERVICE SHALL 1. Encourage participation of NBS research staff (scientists and administrators) and personnel in research, inventorying and monitoring programs associated with and complementary to DEB programs. This can occur by providing opportunities for NBS scientists to participate in reciprocal site comparisons and syntheses involving Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER), Department of Interior (DOI) and other long-term ecological assessment sites. Cooperative efforts with museum and collections staff at institutions supported by NSF are also encouraged. 2. Facilitate participation of DOI sites (e.g., National Parks, Bureau of Land Management lands, Wildlife Refuges) in cooperative efforts with the NSF LTER Network. 3. Communicate to NSF opportunities to participate in processes and events dealing with the planning, implementation, and evaluation of biological diversity and ecosystem management activities. 4. Foster cooperative management of information resources (e.g., databases) relevant to LTER sites and Biotic Collections programs. Such resources are likely to include data from widely distributed sources. 5. Encourage the exchange of biological data and information with NSF-funded programs, and cooperate in the development of the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). 6. Communicate with NSF programs concerning future development of NBS research and monitoring programs to foster cooperative development of shared NSF and NBS interests in detecting long-term biodiversity and ecosystem change. IV. THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION SHALL 1. Encourage interactions between academic and NBS researchers by promoting activities that link data sets and interagency projects on DOI and NSF-funded research sites (e.g., LTER). 2. Foster inter-institutional (e.g., university and Federal agency) dialogue on issues related to biological diversity and ecosystem management through workshops, symposia and other joint activities. 3. Assure that data sets acquired and managed with NSF funds are accessible for use by others following protocols on proprietary rights set for NSF programs and cooperate with the NBS in the development of the NBII. 4. Communicate with NBS programs concerning future development of NSF research programs to foster cooperative development of shared NSF and NBS interests in detecting long-term biodiversity and ecosystem change. V. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT: 1. This instrument is neither a fiscal or a funds obligation document. Any endeavor involving reimbursement or contribution of funds between the parties to this instrument will be handled in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and procedures. Such endeavors will be outlined in formal amendments to this MOU that shall be made in writing by representatives of the parties and shall be independently authorized by appropriate statutory authority. This instrument does not provide such authority. Any contract or agreement for training or other services must fully comply with all applicable requirements for competition. 2. This instrument in no way restricts either the NBS or the NSF from participating in similar activities with other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals. 3. This instrument may be modified or amended upon written consent of both parties or may be terminated with 30-day written notice by either party. 4. Unless terminated, this MOU will remain in full force and effect until September 30, 2000, at which time it will be subject to review, renewal, or expiration. 5. The principal contracts for this instrument are: Assistant Director Inventory and Monitoring National Biological Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240 Division Director Division of Environmental Biology National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this MOU as of the last date written below Mary E. Clutter Assistant Director, Biological Sciences National Science Foundation 4/3/95 H. Ronald Pulliam Director National Biological Service 4/13/95 From csbledsoe@ucdavis.edu Tue Jun 13 12:48:23 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06002; Tue, 13 Jun 95 12:48:22 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28631; 13 Jun 95 12:48 EDT Received: from rocky.ucdavis.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27232; Tue, 13 Jun 95 09:44:55 PDT Received: by rocky.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4) id JAA19639; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:43:39 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Caroline Bledsoe X-Sender: fzbledso@rocky To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Phenology network Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Anyone know of a phenology expert who would like to attend a one day mtg in DC at NASA on June 23...to interact with a small group trying to organize an international network on phenology? Caroline From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Wed Jun 14 15:06:48 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10700; Wed, 14 Jun 95 15:06:47 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11927; 14 Jun 95 15:06 EDT Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05130; Wed, 14 Jun 95 12:04:04 PDT Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11107; 14 Jun 95 15:02 EDT Received: from [128.143.42.143] by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10671; Wed, 14 Jun 95 15:02:45 EDT Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 15:02:44 EDT Message-Id: <9506141902.AA10671@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: PI@lternet.edu From: Bruce Hayden Subject: Site Synthesis Volume Status: OR I expect that all of you got a mailing from Springer-Verlag. For the last year I have been telling all publishers that site synthesis volumes were at the negotiation of the sites but that cross-site and other volumes would be a network thing and done as a series. So Based on the last two CC meetings it seemed that this was our plan: free market for site volumes -- network level decisions on series for cross-site and thematic volumes. I got a call from NSF -- they wanted to know if we had decided to go with Springer for the Site Synthesis Series. They remembered that it would be negotiated by sites not the network. Had we changed our minds? I said no it was still the same. Then he asked if the network had given permission to use the LTER logo on the Springer cover. I said no. In fact it had never been discussed. NSF at the last two CC meetings left little doubt that they wanted the site synthesis volumes to be a book series! We did not bring ourselves to do it that way. I asked what was the current feeling at NSF and the word was --- gee, a series by one publisher would be great and help so much BUT The want us to be a democratic deliberative body and make decisions and communicate to them "what the community says". Some of you know that Konza is negotiating with Oxford. CPR has signed, I assume, with Springer. So we are at the magic junction! It is our lasta chance to decide otherwise. I told NSF that I would put the info out to the PIs. Gosz is in Eurpoe and will see this memo there if he can get on-line. I will collect your views this one last time and confer with Jim based on your views. Thanks in advance for your time. Bruce From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Fri Jun 16 13:53:55 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18669; Fri, 16 Jun 95 13:53:53 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10745; 16 Jun 95 13:53 EDT Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19480; Fri, 16 Jun 95 10:51:32 PDT Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09883; 16 Jun 95 13:50 EDT Received: from [128.143.43.88] (bootp-43-88.bootp.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18655; Fri, 16 Jun 95 13:50:04 EDT Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 13:50:01 EDT Message-Id: <9506161750.AA18655@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: PI@lternet.edu From: Bruce Hayden Subject: Publisher & Site Views Status: OR LTER & Publishers VIEWS FROM THE SITES CDR (Tillman) -- Its always difficult to know where a deca-octa-pod is going. I suggest that we follow a free market system, and not chose one publisher for cross-site comparisons. It would limit us, and put too much weight on that series as our major means of communication. CPR (Burke) -- I am not sure what the negative aspects of going with one publisher would be, and I can see large numbers of positive ones. HFR (Foster) Sounds like Springer is trying to rope us into a series. We have not reached the stage for decisions yet, but I like the flexibility of free market approaches. I will check with our science team. JRN (Schlesinger) -- I believe that the sites should be allowed to negotiate on their own for a publisher, and the Jornada has feelers out to publishers other than Springer. KBS (Robertson) -- KBS likes the idea of a single publisher IF it means we get a better deal on the price of the end-product KNZ (Knapp) -- I have been in favor of a site synthesis series all along...indeed we were hoping the network publications committee would take the lead for us in negotiations so that we could just write our site synthesis. (Konza is close to a deal with Oxford.) LUQ (Waide) -- My compromise was let those with contracts publish, then negotiate a series with a single publisher. Lugo) -- We don't have a strong feeling for one or another publisher. NWT (Seastedt) -- I'm happy to use either publisher and will go with the flow. I'm not convinced a series is that much stronger than individual site volumes. NET (Franklin) -- I favor an official (but voluntary) series. NTL (Magnuson) -- I prefer to see a series in the same press on a voluntary basis for site synthesis. PAL & MCM (Smith) -- You should know that both the Palmer and Dry Valleys LTERs are in advanced stage of a "synthesis" (really more like current status/knowledge for new sites) volumes working with American Geophysical Union (as volumes within their Antarctic Research Series). Manuscripts are due now for the Palmer volume and it is supposed to go to press this coming fall. Perhaps what is needed is a mechanism to identify various independent synthesis volumes (even though they are by different publishers) as a contribution to the LTER "synthesis series" (perhaps identified by an LTER synthesis series number and appropriate logo?). SEV (Milne) -- I support going with Springer for site volumes because a series from one publisher would yield a consistent looking series. VCR (Hayden) -- I favor a series with a negotiated publisher. Network credits are important. It helps NSF sell our program and that is important. Visibility is important in these days of few $$$. We need to sell our network as well as our sites. WHERE WE STAND "Its always difficult to know where a deca-octa-pod is going." Tillman. David is dead on. Decision making (usually at CC meeting time) seems to have a time constant of about 2 years. That is how long it takes us to come to a collective decision and implement it. Once most of the legs have vectored in the same general direction we declare a direction to the movement of our corpus. The call for site freedom, site self-responsibility and site self-oversight on site level publication is still strong within our network. The value of series is recognized. We (site PIs) still talk of free market approach (not a bad idea for ideas) and of intellectual freedom, etc. On the issue site publications with a common publisher, we are split and have been for some time on a Network selected publisher. The support is just not there to do it that way. Not only that but the sites have acted on site-level publications and publishers. Decisions have already been made regarding site synthesis publications. Earlier two sites (CWT and HBR) published volumes about their LTER sites. CPR is signed with Springer. KNZ is very close to signing with Oxford. PAL and MCM are putting out volumes this fall with AGU in its Antarctic Research Series. JRN is negotiating with an undisclosed publisher for their volume. In short, we (now) have multiple publishers for this go around of site synthesis volumes. Ray Smith offered that even though there were several publishers perhaps a common logo, the LTER logo, could be used as a signal or trademark of network membership and network contribution to the advance of our science. I have learned from Bob Waide that NSF is concerned about the use of the LTER LOGO without LTER NETWORK approval. There are two issues: 1) does LOGO use require network sanction and 2) can sites use the logo without network endorsement, i.e. are the sites "entitled owners" of the LOGO and can decide for themselves? So, the issue of a copyright for the LTER LOGO by the LTER CC is open for discussion. A copyright would require that users seek permission of the CC to use the LOGO. Is this a good idea? It would permit volumes published by different publishers to use it on the dust jackets and elsewhere and the network would be visible. So, please indicate your views on the following: A. Authorization to use the LTER logo should require 1. network approval. 2. either network or site approval. 3. use of logo should be consistent with a Network policy statement. 3. need no form of approval. B. Use of logo on site synthesis volumes 1. Site synthesis volumes should use the LTER logo as an identifier. 2. Leave up to the site. C. LTER logo on site publications in general. 1. Site publications should use the logo where possible. 2. The logo should be reserved for network publications. D. To insure proper use of the LTER Logo should it be copyrighted so that use permission is required. 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't care. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP. Jim Gosz will be back from Europe in a few days and I will bring him up to speed on the issues and key all sites posted. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jun 18 18:51:08 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23364; Sun, 18 Jun 95 18:51:07 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06318; 18 Jun 95 18:51 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27016; Sun, 18 Jun 95 15:50:38 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28408; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 16:49:21 -0600 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 16:49:21 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #79 - DOE Mark Up Hearing (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR House Science Subcommittee Mark-Up of DOE Authorization Bill What was scheduled to take only a hour or two last Thursday morning ended up taking the entire day as the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment completed its work on the Department of Energy Civilian Research and Development Act of 1995. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), sitting in the chairman's seat for the first time, guided this mark up in a firm but friendly manner that was characterized by renewed strains of bipartisanism. While the mark up proceeded amicably, its purpose was serious, as the subcommittee cut $1.361 billion from DOE's authorization for FY 1996 (see FYI #78 for an explanation of how this bill relates to actual spending.) Rohrabacher put his colleagues on notice that he would hold them to the subcommittee's budget cap that was drawn from the House Budget Resolution. He said that program authorization levels in the bill could be adjusted by a majority vote of the subcommittee, as long as the cap was not breached. "Today we will set an example for every authorizing committee to follow," Rohrabacher said. This sentiment was echoed by House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) who declared that the draft bill would meet "the test of budget relevancy," by the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, which marks up its bill tomorrow. With that said, the subcommittee moved on to its consideration of a series of amendments. The first amendment, offered by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) would have increased authorization levels on such programs as energy conservation, renewable, and fossil R&D, as well as some physics programs. Doyle based these higher authorization figures on a higher subcommittee cap (made possible, he said, by what he predicted would be the House's eventual dropping of proposed tax cuts.) Rohrabacher declared Doyle's figures "smoke and mirrors" that "just don't add up." This amendment was roundly defeated. Other defeated amendments included one to increase solar and renewable spending at the expense of fossil fuel research, another to delete spending on the Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor, and one to retain DOE's energy efficiency standards program. The subcommittee agreed to an amendment to provide funding for the AP600 light water reactor and another clarifying language for petroleum research. Other amendments were withdrawn from consideration. Toward the end of the hearing, Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), a physicist by training, offered an amendment to provide an additional $28 million for university based research in the nuclear physics program. Ehlers said that this program had been zeroed out, and spoke highly of this research, saying that it yielded more return than any other DOE program. Chairman Rohrabacher agreed with Ehlers' position, and then called for a voice vote. Rohrabacher determined that Ehlers' amendment had carried. A subcommittee member called for a roll call vote, which was tied at 12/12; the result being that the amendment failed. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jun 18 18:54:43 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23370; Sun, 18 Jun 95 18:54:42 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06595; 18 Jun 95 18:54 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27024; Sun, 18 Jun 95 15:54:49 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28443; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 16:53:33 -0600 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 16:53:33 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #80 - DOE Funding (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR DOE FY 1996 Appropriations Bill Mark-Up; DOE Authorization Bill Today the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its FY 1996 bill, cutting over-all DOE funding by 6%, or $940 million, from current year spending. This is 11% below the administration's FY 1996 request. Subcommittee chairman John Myers (R-IN) stated, "While the reduction to the Department of Energy appears significant, it is targeted to the DOE bureaucracy and those activities for which private industry support is more appropriate. The subcommittee's support for basic research is continued in this measure." A statement released by the committee notes that "the bill...respects pending authorization levels under development by various jurisdictional committees of the House." The appropriations subcommittee recommends a 22%, or $718 million, reduction (as compared to FY 1995) in Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities (which includes the fusion program) for a total FY 1996 budget of $2,597 million. The General Science and Research Activities budget increases almost $7 million to $991 million. DOE requested $1,017 million for this budget. Details of this bill will be reported as they become available. The appropriations bill marked up today by Myers' subcommittee was to be guided by the authorization levels in the Department of Energy Civilian Research and Development Act of 1995. This authorizing legislation will next be considered by the full House Science Committee, and then the House. The outlook in the Senate is unknown. Below are authorization levels (i.e., maximum spending levels) for some of the physics-related programs in this bill. In all cases, the administration requests were higher than the FY 1995 budget. Note also that there is considerable detail that cannot be reported because of space limitations. Under the category of ENERGY RESEARCH: Fusion Energy: FY 1995 - $368.4 million. Subcommittee recommendation - $229.1 million. Basic Energy Sciences: FY 1995 - $733.9 million. Subcommittee recommendation - $765.9 million. Note that under this heading are Operating Expenses for Materials Sciences. FY 1995 funding for Materials Sciences is $272.3 million. The subcommittee recommendation is $333.6 million. University and Science Education: FY 1995 - $69.6 million. Subcommittee recommendation - zero. Under the category of GENERAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH: High Energy Physics: FY 1995 - $642.1 million. Subcommittee recommendation - $674.1 million. Nuclear Physics: FY 1995 - $331.5 million. Subcommittee recommendation - $290.1 million. Program Direction: FY 1995 - $10.4 million. Subcommittee recommendation - $8.4 million. Total for General Science and Research: FY 1995 - $984.0 million. Subcommittee recommendation - $972.7 million. Update to FYI #74: On June 8, the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee voted to eliminate the Office of Technology Assessment. ############### From jerry@lternet.edu Thu Jun 15 02:23:38 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12277; Thu, 15 Jun 95 02:23:37 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21990; 15 Jun 95 2:23 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08388; Wed, 14 Jun 95 23:23:02 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 23:23:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Franklin To: Bruce Hayden Cc: PI@lternet.edu Subject: Re: Site Synthesis Volume In-Reply-To: <9506141902.AA10671@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I have favored and continue to favor an official LTER site series, regardless of who it is contracted with. It WILL provide a higher profile for the network--there will be a significant body of LTER work that is readily identified and recovered. It does not mean that everyone would HAVE to publish their site volume in the series. It could be a voluntary participation kind of thing. But, assuming a few of us produced volumes for it, it would have merit. I favor an official (but voluntary) series. Jerry On Wed, 14 Jun 1995, Bruce Hayden wrote: > I expect that all of you got a mailing from Springer-Verlag. For the last > year I have been telling all publishers that site synthesis volumes were at > the negotiation of the sites but that cross-site and other volumes would be > a network thing and done as a series. So Based on the last two CC meetings > it seemed that this was our plan: free market for site volumes -- network > level decisions on series for cross-site and thematic volumes. > > I got a call from NSF -- they wanted to know if we had decided to go with > Springer for the Site Synthesis Series. They remembered that it would be > negotiated by sites not the network. Had we changed our minds? I said no > it was still the same. Then he asked if the network had given permission > to use the LTER logo on the Springer cover. I said no. In fact it had > never been discussed. > > NSF at the last two CC meetings left little doubt that they wanted the site > synthesis volumes to be a book series! We did not bring ourselves to do it > that way. I asked what was the current feeling at NSF and the word was --- > gee, a series by one publisher would be great and help so much BUT The > want us to be a democratic deliberative body and make decisions and > communicate to them "what the community says". Some of you know that Konza > is negotiating with Oxford. CPR has signed, I assume, with Springer. So > we are at the magic junction! It is our lasta chance to decide otherwise. > I told NSF that I would put the info out to the PIs. Gosz is in Eurpoe and > will see this memo there if he can get on-line. I will collect your views > this one last time and confer with Jim based on your views. > > Thanks in advance for your time. > > Bruce > > > From jerry@lternet.edu Sat Jun 17 16:50:59 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21459; Sat, 17 Jun 95 16:50:57 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01149; 17 Jun 95 16:50 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24223; Sat, 17 Jun 95 13:49:37 PDT Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 13:49:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Franklin To: Bruce Hayden Cc: PI@lternet.edu Subject: Re: Publisher & Site Views In-Reply-To: <9506161750.AA18655@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR My view on the questions: A. Logo should be used only with network approval and consistent with network policy B. Use logo as identifier C. Reserve logo for network pubs and major site syntheses. D. Copyright the logo, pronto. JErry Franklin On Fri, 16 Jun 1995, Bruce Hayden wrote: > LTER & Publishers > > VIEWS FROM THE SITES > > CDR (Tillman) -- Its always difficult to know where a deca-octa-pod is > going. I suggest that we follow a free market system, and not chose one > publisher for cross-site comparisons. It would limit us, and put too much > weight on that series as our major means of communication. > > CPR (Burke) -- I am not sure what the negative aspects of going with one > publisher would be, and I can see large numbers of positive ones. > > HFR (Foster) Sounds like Springer is trying to rope us into a series. We > have not > reached the stage for decisions yet, but I like the flexibility of free > market approaches. I will check with our science team. > > JRN (Schlesinger) -- I believe that the sites should be allowed to > negotiate on their own for a publisher, and the Jornada has feelers out to > publishers other than Springer. > > KBS (Robertson) -- KBS likes the idea of a single publisher IF it means > we get a better deal on the price of the end-product > > KNZ (Knapp) -- I have been in favor of a site synthesis series all > along...indeed we were hoping the network publications committee would take > the lead for us in negotiations so that we could just write our site > synthesis. (Konza is close to a deal with Oxford.) > > LUQ (Waide) -- My compromise was let those with contracts publish, then > negotiate a series with a single publisher. Lugo) -- We don't have a strong > feeling for one or another publisher. > > NWT (Seastedt) -- I'm happy to use either publisher and will go with the > flow. I'm not convinced a series is that much stronger than individual > site volumes. > > NET (Franklin) -- I favor an official (but voluntary) series. > > NTL (Magnuson) -- I prefer to see a series in the same press on a voluntary > basis for site synthesis. > > PAL & MCM (Smith) -- You should know that both the Palmer and Dry Valleys > LTERs are in advanced stage of a "synthesis" (really more like current > status/knowledge for new sites) volumes working with American Geophysical > Union (as volumes within their Antarctic Research Series). Manuscripts are > due now for the Palmer volume and it is supposed to go to press this > coming fall. Perhaps what is needed is a mechanism to identify various > independent synthesis volumes (even though they are by different > publishers) as a contribution to the LTER "synthesis series" (perhaps > identified by an LTER synthesis series number and appropriate logo?). > > SEV (Milne) -- I support going with Springer for site volumes because a > series from one publisher would yield a consistent looking series. > > VCR (Hayden) -- I favor a series with a negotiated publisher. Network > credits are important. It helps NSF sell our program and that is > important. Visibility is important in these days of few $$$. We need to > sell our network as well as our sites. > > > WHERE WE STAND > > "Its always difficult to know where a deca-octa-pod is going." Tillman. > > David is dead on. Decision making (usually at CC meeting time) seems to > have a time constant of about 2 years. That is how long it takes us to > come to a collective decision and implement it. Once most of the legs have > vectored in the same general direction we declare a direction to the > movement of our corpus. > > The call for site freedom, site self-responsibility and site self-oversight > on site level publication is still strong within our network. The value of > series is recognized. We (site PIs) still talk of free market approach (not > a bad idea for ideas) and of intellectual freedom, etc. On the issue site > publications with a common publisher, we are split and have been for some > time on a Network selected publisher. The support is just not there to do > it that way. Not only that but the sites have acted on site-level > publications and publishers. Decisions have already been made regarding > site synthesis publications. > > Earlier two sites (CWT and HBR) published volumes about their LTER sites. > CPR is signed with Springer. KNZ is very close to signing with Oxford. > PAL and MCM are putting out volumes this fall with AGU in its Antarctic > Research Series. JRN is negotiating with an undisclosed publisher for > their volume. In short, we (now) have multiple publishers for this go > around of site synthesis volumes. > > Ray Smith offered that even though there were several publishers perhaps a > common logo, the LTER logo, could be used as a signal or trademark of > network membership and network contribution to the advance of our science. > > I have learned from Bob Waide that NSF is concerned about the use of the > LTER LOGO without LTER NETWORK approval. There are two issues: 1) does > LOGO use require network sanction and 2) can sites use the logo without > network endorsement, i.e. are the sites "entitled owners" of the LOGO and > can decide for themselves? > > So, the issue of a copyright for the LTER LOGO by the LTER CC is open for > discussion. A copyright would require that users seek permission of the CC > to use the LOGO. Is this a good idea? It would permit volumes published by > different publishers to use it on the dust jackets and elsewhere and the > network would be visible. > > So, please indicate your views on the following: > > A. Authorization to use the LTER logo should require > 1. network approval. > 2. either network or site approval. > 3. use of logo should be consistent with a Network policy statement. > 3. need no form of approval. > > B. Use of logo on site synthesis volumes > 1. Site synthesis volumes should use the LTER logo as an identifier. > 2. Leave up to the site. > > C. LTER logo on site publications in general. > 1. Site publications should use the logo where possible. > 2. The logo should be reserved for network publications. > > D. To insure proper use of the LTER Logo should it be copyrighted so that > use permission is required. > 1. Yes > 2. No > 3. Don't care. > > THANKS FOR YOUR HELP. Jim Gosz will be back from Europe in a few days and > I will bring him up to speed on the issues and key all sites posted. > > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jun 18 19:04:06 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23379; Sun, 18 Jun 95 19:04:04 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07380; 18 Jun 95 19:04 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27061; Sun, 18 Jun 95 16:02:30 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28525; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 17:01:14 -0600 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 17:01:13 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Call for Proposals (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORp Bill Murdoch sent this. Since Kay may be overseas, I thought I would forward it. jim good luck on your proposals. We expect to discuss this at the CC meeting to see about a more Network-wide approach as well. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 09:08:55 -0700 (PDT) From: William Murdoch To: scooper@lifesci.lscf.ucsb.edu, kgross@kbs.msu.edu, mtg@macc.wisc.edu, jgosz@relampago.unm.edu, fd@ventana.GEOG.UCSB.EDU, macmilla@lifesci.lscf.ucsb.edu Subject: Call for Proposals I am enclosing (I hope) the final version of the call for proposals. As part of the process of getting it the widest possible distribution, I hope you will agree to forward it as follows: Jim Gosz: to the AERC newsletter Kay Gross: to the LTR Network office and LTERNET Monica Turner: to Landscape Ecology list serve Scott Cooper: to any newletter or appropriate outlet for ASLO and NABS (Scott, sorry, I couldn't think of anyone else who would know this info!). ******************************************************************** * Bill Murdoch E-Mail murdoch@lifesci.lscf.ucsb.edu * * Department of Biology Office Phone (805) 893-4887 * * University of California Lab Phone (805) 893-2808 * * Santa Barbara, CA 93106 FAX (805) 893-3777 * ******************************************************************** Ecological Analysis and Synthesis: Call for Proposals The newly established National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) solicits proposals for collaborative research to synthesize existing ecological data and/or theory to address major fundamental and applied problems in ecology. The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis was founded in May 1995 and has been funded for an initial five year period by the National Science Foundation with additional support from the State of California. The center is affiliated with the University of California at Santa Barbara and is located off campus in downtown Santa Barbara. Facilities include offices, meeting rooms and extensive computing capability. The Center's focus is collaborative, basic and applied research on the structure and dynamics of ecological systems. The areas of emphasis for the first two years are SPATIOTEMPORAL DYNAMICS and ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT. Proposals for research not falling within these areas but of a highly innovative and synthetic nature will also be considered. In the area of SPATIOTEMPORAL DYNAMICS, proposals are sought that integrate spatial analysis and temporal dynamics to solve ecological problems. These could involve syntheses of multiple data sets, exploration of new methods of analysis or types of spatial data, or comparisons of theoretical approaches. Examples include (but are not limited to): A comparison of alternative theoretical approaches for explicitly modeling the spatial component of dynamical processes in ecological systems. Linking geographic information system data for particular landscapes with the dynamics of focal species, or other ecological units, on those landscapes. The compilation, synthesis, and analysis of existing long-term data on population numbers, biomass, production or other ecological processes. Integration of spatial dynamics of physical-chemical processes with spatial dynamics of biotic processes and population interactions. Exploring the use of large scale spatial data and models for biodiversity protection, reserve design, and land management. In the area of ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT (EM), proposals are sought that develop the ability of ecology to support ecosystem management. EM encompasses all traditional foci of ecology, including populations, communities, ecosystems and landscapes. Examples include, but are not limited to: Models that address the complexity, interconnectedness, variability and mutability of managed ecological systems. Issues of spatial-temporal scaling or levels of aggregation for EM. Integration of management and ecological information across multiple scales. Interactions of humans and ecological systems, including synthesis of ecology and economics. Adaptability of ecological and management systems. Projects designed to promote and improve communication between scientists and managers. NCEAS does not intend to fund collection of new data. Instead, funds will be used to support activities aimed at integrating existing theory and information to search for general patterns and to help address important environmental problems. Sponsored activities include research workshops, training workshops, working groups, resident and postdoctoral fellows. Long-term working groups of 6-10 individuals will reside at the Center for one to six months of intensive collaborative research, and will normally end with an open conference hosted by the Center. Short-term working groups will be of similar size but convened for periods up to one month of intensive effort, and may also meet on a number of occasions over several years. Resident fellows (typically individuals on sabbatical leave) will be appointed for periods up to a year, postdoctoral fellows typically for two years. At current funding, the center can support on the order of 5 short term working groups, 2 long term working groups and 6 resident fellows in 1995-1996, and twice this number in subsequent years; about 6 postdoctoral fellows can be supported in all years. Allocation of funds among categories will be flexible. Applicants are encouraged to consider additional funding sources to leverage NCEAS resources. For this calendar year the target dates for receipt of proposals are September 1, 1995 and December 31, 1995. Proposals should not exceed 2000 words (excluding references and cvs) and should be organized as follows: (1) Title and Summary, (2) Problem Statement, (3) Rationale for NCEAS support, (4) Proposed Activities and Timetable, (5) Anticipated Results and Beneficiaries, (6) Required Resources, (7) Curriculum Vitae of key participants (2 page limit for each). Required resources should be described in terms of Travel (number of round trips and destinations), Per Diem (number of participant-days), and Other Anticipated Needs. Proposals should be mailed electronically to director@ceas.ucsb.edu. Three printed copies should be sent to the Interim Director William W. Murdoch. If email is unavailable or if the proposal contains graphics, 20 copies can be posted to Director, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106. Proposals will be reviewed by the Science Advisory Board and final awards made by the Director based on the quality of the proposal, its fit with NCEAS goals and objectives, likelihood of tangible success, and the availability of Center resources. Proposers will receive only very brief comments on their proposals. The following comprise the Science Advisory Board: May Berenbaum - University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Steve Carpenter - University of Wisconsin, Madison Ted Case - UC San Diego Terry Chapin - UC Berkeley James Clark - Duke University Philip Crowley - University of Kentucky Diana Freckman - Colorado State University Kay Gross - Michigan State University Peter Kareiva - University of Washington John Lawton - Imperial College of Silwood Park, United Kingdom Charles Peterson - University of North Carolina Steward Pickett - Institute of Ecosystems Studies, NY Steven Running - University of Montana Donald Strong - UC Davis Peter Turchin - University of Connecticut Monica Turner - University of Wisconsin Peter Vitousek - Stanford University Earl Werner - University of Michigan Individuals may submit who hold a position in a U.S. organization, including academic institutions, free-standing research institutions, scientific societies, or a consortium of such institutions with appropriate research and educational programs. Proposals may also involve multi- institutional arrangements with other organizations (e.g., international collaborators, public and private sector research laboratories). Additional information, including the initial center proposal which contains detailed descriptions of the various sponsored activities (working groups, fellowships etc), is available via the World Wide Web at www.ceas.ucsb.edu, or by contacting the center directly. Phone: 805-893- 7670; Fax: 805-893-3777; Email:admin@ceas.ucsb.edu. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jun 18 19:16:17 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23419; Sun, 18 Jun 95 19:16:16 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08644; 18 Jun 95 19:16 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27116; Sun, 18 Jun 95 16:16:06 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28670; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 17:14:49 -0600 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 17:14:49 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #81 - Mission to Planet Earth (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Friendly Senate Hearing for NASA's Mission to Planet Earth On June 13, Conrad Burns (R-MT), chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, held a supportive hearing on NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. In contrast to recent criticisms of the program by House Science Committee Chair Robert Walker (R-PA), Burns' hearing showcased witnesses who praised the program and supported it as currently planned. Burns stated that the program has the potential to "easily pay for itself." The witnesses gave examples of how data from NASA's Mission to Planet Earth programs, including EOS, Landsat, and TOPEX/Poseidon, can be used by regional and local governments, private industries, and other federal agencies. Paul Smith, director of atmospheric sciences at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, noted that the major concerns affecting the economy of the upper Missouri River Basin were weather, water, and agriculture. He explained how the region made use of NASA remote sensing data to improve understanding of those processes and provide a better base for policy decisions. Richard Bowers, the city manager for Scottsdale, Arizona, reported that his city was working with NASA to incorporate satellite data into its Geographic Information System. He stated that it had enormous potential to save the city millions of dollars each year in planning, zoning, and mapping activities. Accurate data, he said, is "critical to making wise stewardship decisions." Tommy Thompson, resource manager for Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, explained how the timber industry uses satellite imagery of a region to assess resources and needs, and develop long-term management plans. In the House, Walker has proposed reduced funding for EOS, and particularly its Data and Information System (EOSDIS). On June 12, he announced a GAO report critical of the EOS budget, which estimated its total cost at about $33 billion. In the accompanying press release, Walker stated, "It is clear that the original price of this program must be scaled down. We have to make the decisions today that will lead to long-term savings.... The ground-based portion of the program must also be rescoped.... A smaller-scale data information system would fulfill the requirements of the program." Burns gave his witnesses the opportunity to refute these criticisms. NASA's Associate Administrator for Mission to Planet Earth, Charles Kennel, responded that GAO did not take into account ongoing NASA efforts, such as the New Millennium program, to develop and incorporate new technologies that would reduce future costs. Al Watkins, director of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Mapping Division, stressed the importance of making the data easily accessible to a large community of users. "History shows," he said, "that poorly-implemented ground systems can have devastating effects on the quality of scientific research." Noting that "the taxpayers are really getting more for their money" from the program than "what they read in the papers," Burns said that he and the full Senate commerce committee chair, Larry Pressler (R-SD), were strong supporters of Mission to Planet Earth. Although unable to attend the hearing, Pressler has been quoted in "Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report" as suggesting that funding for the space station might perhaps be better spent on Mission to Planet Earth. However, the Senate does not often develop authorization bills, and Burns gave no indication that he was drafting one this year. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jun 18 19:37:24 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23541; Sun, 18 Jun 95 19:37:23 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10253; 18 Jun 95 19:37 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27192; Sun, 18 Jun 95 16:37:22 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28804; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 17:36:05 -0600 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 17:36:05 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #83 - NSF Authorization (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR National Science Foundation Budget Comes Into Focus Although it will be months before President Clinton signs into law the National Science Foundation appropriation for FY 1996, an important step in this process occurred earlier this week. House Basic Research Subcommittee Chairman Steven Schiff (R-NM) and his colleagues marked up an NSF authorization bill for FY 1996 and 1997. The bottom line: NSF's budget is capped at $3,126.00 million for FY 1996 and $3,171.40 million for the following year. NSF's current year budget is $3,263.65 million; the administration requested $3,360.00 million for FY 1996. The "main event" gets underway next week when the House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee meets to mark up their bill. Now scheduled for June 22, with full committee action on July 11, this bill will contain the first set of firm numbers on NSF's FY 1996 budget. But make no mistake, in this Congress, budget-making is moving in a more orderly process, and authorizing legislation is taking on considerable importance. As he predicted, the numbers in the House Budget Resolution are being used by House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) to set budget ceilings for his subcommittees to use as they write their bills. If initial indications are correct, the appropriations subcommittees are using the authorizing bills to guide their appropriations (see FYIs #79 and 80.) While neither the budget resolution or authorizing bills are "final," the House Science Committee leadership is treating them as if they are. So while the figures in H.R. 1852, the "National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1995" are not final, they are likely to be in the ballpark. Here are the FY 1996 authorization levels, or the upper limits on what the VA, HUD appropriators are supposed to provide for selected NSF activities: Over-all NSF FY 1996 Authorization: $3,126.00 million. Current budget: $3,263.65 million. Administration FY 1996 request: $3,360.00 million. Research and Related Activities (R&RA) FY 1996 Authorization: $2,226.30 million. Current budget: $2,280.00 million. Administration FY 1996 request: $2,454.00 million. Mathematical and Physical Sciences FY 1996 Authorization (a component of the R&RA budget funding physics, astronomy, and materials research): $632.20 million. Current budget: $644.57 million. Administration FY 1996 request: $698.28 million. Geosciences FY 1996 Authorization (a component of the R&RA budget): $408.80 million. Current budget: $419.49 million. Administration FY 1996 request: $451.48 million. Education and Human Resources FY 1996 Authorization (separate from R&RA, as are all budgets below): $600.00 million. Current budget: $614.03 million. Administration request: $599.00 million. Major Research Equipment FY 1996 Authorization (which in FY 1996 consists solely of funding for LIGO): $70.00 million. Current budget: $126.00 million. Administration FY 1996 request: $70.00 million. Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program FY 1996 Authorization: $100.00 million. Current budget: $118.13 million. Administration FY 1996 request: $100.00 million. The subcommittee mark up of this NSF bill was smoother than that last week for the Department of Energy R&D authorization bill, a reflection perhaps of the different styles of the chairmen. Chairman Schiff began by saying that "NSF is a well-run agency, with a well-defined mission. While I will conduct oversight of its operations, I do not want to make substantial reforms at this time." Schiff's sentiments were reflected in the bill that was before the subcommittee. It stated, "the primary mission of the Foundation continues to be the support of basic scientific research and science education and the support of research fundamental to the engineering process and engineering education; and the Foundation's efforts to contribute to the economic competitiveness of the United States should be in accord with that primary mission." Language later in the bill calls for an annual report which will define "over-all goals for the Foundation and specific goals for each major activity of the Foundation...." The report should "describe how the identified goals relate to national needs and will exploit new opportunities in science and technology." The Ranking Democratic Member of the subcommittee, Pete Geren (D-TX) said "the chairman has made the best of a difficult situation; and, although the bill before us represents a decrease in funding for NSF, it is a fair allocation that provides relatively gentle treatment for NSF in a year in which many federal science and technology programs authorized by the committee have experienced, or are facing the prospect of, severe cuts." Geren and Rep. George Brown (D-CA) commented favorably on the bipartisan spirit in the subcommittee. Five amendments were considered. The first made a technical change to the bill's anti-lobbying provision, which states that no funds authorized by this act are to be used for lobbying. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) offered an amendment to strengthen the link between research and education at universities. The subcommittee agreed by voice vote to Boehlert's requirement that the NSF director provide a plan to implement the following requirement: "The impact that a grant or cooperative agreement by the NSF would have on undergraduate and graduate education at an institution of higher education shall be a factor in any decision whether to award such grant or agreement to that institution." Boehlert promised to revisit this issue in two years if he is not satisfied with the results of this open-ended amendment. The subcommittee also agreed to language that permits increasing the NSF authorization if future budgetary circumstances permit. It voted down (15 no - 8 yes) an amendment to immediately increase authorization levels, in large measure because the higher levels would breach the figures in the House Budget Resolution. And, in an informal show of hands, subcommittee members declined to rename NSF as the National Science and Engineering Foundation. On June 22, the full House Science Committee will mark up this NSF bill (H.R. 1852), and one of the NIST bills. On June 20, it will mark up H.R. 1816, the DOE Civilian R&D Authorization Act and H.R. 1601, the International Space Station Authorization Act. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jun 18 19:37:56 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23547; Sun, 18 Jun 95 19:37:55 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10365; 18 Jun 95 19:37 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27199; Sun, 18 Jun 95 16:38:11 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28817; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 17:36:55 -0600 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 17:36:54 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #82- NIST Authorization (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Grim Prognosis for NIST Extramural Programs Partisan squabbling highlighted yesterday's House Science Subcommittee on Technology mark-up of two authorization bills for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The American Technology Advancement Act would authorize funding for NIST's core laboratory programs and badly-needed construction. NIST's cooperative programs with industry, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEP), were addressed in a second bill, the NIST Industrial Technology Services Authorization Act. While authorizing legislation gives approval and sets spending ceilings for programs, funding is actually provided by the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee. The first bill designated $272.2 million for NIST's intramural laboratory programs in fiscal year 1996, and $65.5 million for construction of research facilities (in both cases, more than FY1995 funding but less than the President's FY1996 request.) The second bill authorized "such sums as may be appropriated" for NIST's ATP and MEP programs, effectively allowing for funding if appropriators are able, and willing, to do so. The purpose behind this strategy, subcommittee chair Connie Morella (R-MD) said, was to send "the signal to the appropriators that...NIST core funding and construction must be maintained as the first priority." Morella said she was operating within budget caps set by House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA), and consistent with the House-passed Budget Resolution. An avid NIST supporter (one of NIST's two facilities is in her district), Morella made it clear that her "preference would be to fully fund every NIST function. However, given our commitment to balance the budget, that simply cannot be the reality." Her approach was challenged on several fronts by subcommittee Democrats. George Brown (D-CA), former science committee chairman, charged that the subcommittee was not legally bound by any caps and could authorize any amount they chose for NIST's programs. He called the caps an "artful fiction contrived by the chairman of the full committee," who has long opposed NIST's extramural programs. John Tanner (D-TN), Paul McHale (D-PA), and other Democrats complained that while the science committee has scheduled mark-ups next week for other authorization bills, the bill authorizing ATP and MEP is not scheduled for discussion, causing those programs to "die a quiet death." After failing to pass an amendment to set specific funding levels for ATP and MEP in the first bill, the Democrats offered an amendment that, while keeping Morella's text intact, simply merged the two bills into one. This tactic, they insisted, was the only way to assure that the extramural programs would be debated in the full committee. Morella said she believed that the second bill would receive full committee consideration at some time. The appropriators are due to mark up their bill on June 27. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) pointed out that any authorizing legislation not passed by the full committee by that time would have little effect on the appropriations process. The amendment to combine the two bills failed, 7 to 6, on a party-line vote. The amendment's defeat, Tanner said, "puts the final nail in the coffin of both of these programs." The authorization bill for NIST's core laboratory programs is scheduled to be marked-up by the full science committee on June 22. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jun 18 20:38:15 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23597; Sun, 18 Jun 95 20:38:13 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16088; 18 Jun 95 20:38 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27372; Sun, 18 Jun 95 17:37:45 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA29075; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 18:36:29 -0600 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 18:36:29 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: New report identifies research frontiers in inland water ecology Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NEW REPORT IDENTIFIES RESEARCH FRONTIERS IN INLAND WATER ECOLOGY Fresh water is a strategic resource in a rapidly changing world. It is a source of energy, an avenue of transportation, provides habitat for a myriad of organisms, and is essential for life. Fresh water shapes the physical landscape, is a central feature of climate, and exerts major influences on economic growth and demographic patterns. Inevitably, as the human population increases, more and more demands are being placed on freshwater ecosystems. Already, sufficient clean water and healthy aquatic habitats have become a rare natural resource. Understanding the abilities and limits of freshwater ecosystems to respond to human-generated pressures has become vital to long-term societal stability, say scientists who study these ecosystems. These are problems for basic science, according to the researchers; they reflect national and global needs, and they are happening now. According to a newly released report funded in part by the National Science Foundation, The Freshwater Imperative: A Research Agenda, scientists and managers are increasingly called upon to provide a predictive understanding of freshwater ecological systems, but are unable to respond effectively at a scale commensurate with the issues involved. There are two main reasons for this, say the report's authors: "The funding and infrastructure for freshwater sciences have dwindled while U.S. government agencies expend enormous resources on ineffective management activities that have a poor scientific foundation. And the current dependence on short-term studies does not allow for the separation of human-caused changes from natural environmental change." Changes in the distribution, abundance, and quality of freshwater resources in this century represent a strategic threat to the quality of human life, the environmental sustainability of the biosphere, and the viability of human cultures, says the report. "The United States is facing, in a real sense, a freshwater imperative. Will freshwater sciences and management be ready to meet this challenge? As demands for freshwater resources increase, resource managers and policymakers must ensure that the benefits from water use and the protection of water resources are optimized." The report identifies a number of deficiencies in the national infrastructure supporting freshwater sciences, including inabilities to predict the future vitality of altered environments, to combine environmental and socioeconomic sciences into an integrated ecosystem perspective, and to provide a research and education framework that allows an effective response to emerging issues. Two years ago, the National Science Foundation and other agencies awarded funding to a leading group of aquatic scientists to identify research opportunities and frontiers in the freshwater sciences for this decade and beyond. The new report summarizes the results of their effort. The Freshwater Imperative research agenda discussed in the report addresses science issues with immediate policy relevance, and discusses fundamental research "to help ensure that today's uncertainties do not become tomorrow's problems." -end- From mallen@nsf.gov Mon Jun 19 08:30:51 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA24709; Mon, 19 Jun 95 08:30:50 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21711; 19 Jun 95 8:30 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28798; Mon, 19 Jun 95 05:30:02 PDT Received: from [128.150.134.18] (bio0009.bio.nsf.gov) by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA22263 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Mon, 19 Jun 1995 08:30:21 -0400 X-Sender: mallen@popsrvr.nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 08:30:11 -0500 To: pi@lternet.edu From: Mike Allen Subject: Funding of DOE Cc: jgosz@lternet.edu Status: OR for your information-Mike >Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 17:21:41 EST >From: jroskosk >To: deball@nsf.gov >Subject: Funding of DOE > >For those who are concerned about DOE funding or the environment the >following speech provides a useful insight into the thinking of our >elected leaders. It starts off slow but gets interesting in the >second half. > > >>For your information, the full text of the press release of the >>Chair of the House Sub-Committee on Energy and Environment > >>>Subject: Rohrabacher Press Conference >> >> The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher >> Statement at Press Conference >> Energy and Environment Authorization >> June 7, >> 1995 >> >> >> >> Today the Subcommittee on energy and the Environment of the House >>Science Committee releases its mark of the budget for FY 1996. Our budget >>figures represent the commitment made to the American people to balance the >>budget within seven years. This Subcommittee's part of the balanced budget >>commitment is trimming the current $7.9 billion spent of federal energy and >>environmental research to $6.2 billion. >> >> Reducing the level of government spending is not just a negative >>process. Programs have a tendency to go on and on, even when no longer >>justified. A reduction of overall spending forces us to cut out the dead >>wood, to prioritize and restructure. It also forces us to re-evaluate >>programs that may have seemed a good idea at inception, but after years of >>funding may be lacking in performance. >> >> Large-scale fusion energy projects are examples of this. After 40 >>years and $9 billion of taxpayer funds, none of the research has reached >>"break-even," the point at which the fusion reaction generates the same >>amount of energy as put in. Now we are told that it will take another 40 >>years and $9 billion to reach the goal of generating more energy than is >>put in, which is required to provide commercial power. If programs like >>this are to survive, they must scale down and cut out duplicative research >>efforts. >> >> The responsibility of cutting spending is always more difficult and >>heart rending than is the opportunity, in good times, to increase spending. >>When trimming the budget there is always the possibility that one program >>that should be eliminated or at least further reduced, is instead >>maintained at an unjustified level of funding, while other more deserving >>programs are hit hard. The answer to these criticisms is all, of us just >>try to do our best. >> >> Today's budget figures reflect prioritization, a commitment to the >>best use of limited tax dollars, and a change in some fundamental >>assumptions, upon which past spending programs were based. We are meeting >>our commitment to a balanced budget in seven years while preserving >>fundamental scientific research. I am delighted to announce that my >>friend, the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee, Jimmy Hayes, has >>agreed to be an original co-sponsor of all three authorization bills we >>will consider tomorrow. Whatever differences we may have on some aspects >>of the budget resolution, I know that he is as dedicated as I am to making >>the tough decisions required to meet the goal of a balanced budget. >> >> At a time of limited revenue, the private sector, especially big >>corporations, should not expect their research to be subsidized by the >>taxpayers. You all should have a copy of this chart from the Philadelphia >>Inquirer which demonstrates just how completely corporate America is >>addicted to taxpayer funds. From 1991 to 1994 government technology >>subsidies for ... >> >>Amoco - - $23.6 Million >>AT&T - - $35.6 Million >>General Motors - - $110.6 Million >>IBM - - $58 Million >> >>And the list goes on and on >> >> And no where is corporate welfare more prevalent than in DOE's >>research budget. >> >> General Electric, with after-tax profits last year of $4.7 billion, >>has received millions of dollars to pay licensing fees to the Nuclear >>Regulatory Commission and they want millions more to meet NRC requirements >>for nuclear and gas technology that has been fully developed for some >>years. >> >> The world's largest air conditioning manufacturers, York, Trane and >>Carrier, are being given tax dollars to market a better heat pump. >> >> Dupont, with after-tax profits of $2.7 billion last year, feels it >>needs millions in taxpayer funds to help its textile division get a bigger >>share of the market through the AMTEX Consortium. >> >> Not only are we subsidizing America's giant corporations, but >>technology subsidies have been given out to firms from Germany, France, >>England and Sweden. >> >> If you look at this pie chart, you'll see we are proposing net >>savings of $1.36 billion over current funding levels. Over 55% of the >>savings we suggested come from the corporate welfare pot - - That's the >>green shaded piece - - about one-third from low-priority programs and >>programs that are non-mission related (in red) and the blue represents the >>over 11% cut from the bureaucracy. Our budget requires a streamlining of >>program management to fit the new program budget levels. >> >> In another area of savings, trendy science that is propped up by >>liberal/left politics rather than good science has cost us billions. That >>might have been good politics for the ruling party at the time, but there >>is a new gang in town and we mean to do right by the taxpayers, consumers >>and working people of our country. We will not permit scare mongers and >>chicken littles to successfully push federal policies that tax our people >>into lower standards of living, raise the price of the products they buy >>and regulate them out of a job. >> >> No where is scientific nonsense more evident than in GLOBAL WARMING >>programs that are sprinkled throughout the current year budget. Our FY '96 >>budget does not operate on the assumption that Global Warming is a proven >>phenomenon. In fact, it is assumed at best to be unproven and at worst to >>be liberal clap trap, trendy but soon to go out of style in our NEWT >>Congress. >> >> Other trendy but unjustified spending includes: The Environmental >>Technology Initiative, which gives checks to firms to commercialize their >>technology if its got the word "environment" in it. >> >> Other examples include, the "Cool Communities" program that spends >>funds to tell communities that if they plant more trees, they will get more >>shade and the "Build America" and "Rebuild America" programs which markets >>energy efficient products and designs to builders. By the way, the Cool >>Communities program requires more than one agency to do the job. The >>Pentagon, EPA and forest Service all are spending money on this program. >> >> Our goal in this budget is to get BACK TO THE BASICS, funding >>essential productive scientific research which cannot be done elsewhere in >>the private sector, research that will produce quality scientific results >>in order to improve our lives today, and future generations. And >>notwithstanding the liberal doomsayers who will scream and carry on at the >>death of their nonsensical programs, we have achieved our goal. This >>budget meets our commitment to a balanced budget while aggressively funding >>fundamental basic scientific research. >> >> This bar chart shows that slight decreases in General Science and >>Biological and Environmental Research are offset by an increase in the >>Basic Energy Sciences. In a budget that is being cut by 25% from current >>year funding, we hold spending for basic research virtually even. >> >> >> >> >> >Paul Falkowski >Oceanographic and Atmospheric Sciences Division >Brookhaven National Laboratory >Upton, NY 11973 >Tel: (516) 282-2961 >Fax: (516) 282-3246 >e-mail: falkowsk@bnlux1.bnl.gov > From mallen@nsf.gov Mon Jun 19 08:31:25 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA24715; Mon, 19 Jun 95 08:31:22 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21857; 19 Jun 95 8:31 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28799; Mon, 19 Jun 95 05:30:04 PDT Received: from [128.150.134.18] (bio0009.bio.nsf.gov) by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA26620 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 19 Jun 1995 08:30:24 -0400 X-Sender: mallen@popsrvr.nsf.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 08:30:13 -0500 To: pi@lternet.edu From: Mike Allen Subject: NSF Update June 14, 1995 Status: OR for your information-Mike >Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 17:27:44 EST >From: jroskosk >To: debpo@nsf.gov >Subject: NSF Update June 14, 1995 > >*********Forwarded Message Follows >***************************************** > The Basic Research Subcommittee of the House Science Committee >completed action on the NSF authorization this morning and passed the >bill on to the full committee which is slated to take action on June 22, >the same day the VA HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the >Appropriations Committee is set to take action on the NSF appropriation. >The behavioral and social sciences were not singled out for extraordinary >cuts. Their cut is proportional to their size. The Chairman of the >Subcommittee, Steven Schiff noted that a great many letters and telephone >calls raising concern about the behavioral and social sciences had been >received and that the Subcommittee would not treat these sciences >differently from the other sciences in the bill. (Thank all of you again >for your efforts in this respect.) BUT, Schiff said, he did intend to >exercise oversight over the behavioral and social sciences. He did not >explain the specific meaning of his statement. One staffer suggested >after the markup that the statement at least sets the stage for further >action on the behavioral and social sciences. > Meanwhile, Howard Silver of the Consortium of Social Science >Associations received word yesterday that an amendment is being drafted >for Robert Walker regarding the social, behavioral, and economic >sciences. It was speculated that Mr. Walker might offer the amendment >this morning, but, while he did participate in the markup, he did not >offer the amendment. The latest word is that the amendment is not yet in >its final form. So there is much guessing about what it will contain. >Based on the issues he has raised in recent conversations and public >discussions, it seems likely that Mr. Walker's amendment may abolish the >Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate but keep the >programs contained in the Directorate, either farming them out to other >directorates through the amendment or allowing NSF to do so. This option >has been discussed by majority staff members. And Walker has hinted that >he thinks there are management problems in the Directorate, that peer >review within the Directorate may not be as value free as is the case in >the other Directorates, and that, as a result, some proposals are funded >that are not truly basic research proposals. The concerns he raised are >not supported by the evidence: In fact, there has been nothing but >praise for the management of the Directorate. The success rate for >proposals submitted to the Directorate is 28% at best, and is as low as >18% in some programs, which would suggest that even many of the most >outstanding proposals are not funded--a reality that is inconsistent with >any contention that less than the best proposals are being funded. >Moreover, most proposals submitted to the Directorate undergo two levels >of review (ad hoc and study section) rather than one. In that sense, the >review process in SBE is even more rigorous than in some of the other >Directorates where the two-level review is not the routine practice. It >would seem, therefore, that Walker is choosing criticisms that, >regardless of evidence to support their validity, do make a case for >giving the programs over to directorates that would allegedly manage them >more responsibly. > In meetings with Republican staff, Washington representatives for >the behavioral and social sciences have been advised that it would be >prudent to accept the Walker amendment at the full committee because it >would fulfill Walker's need to do something to implement at least the >spirit of the Budget Resolution report language. He might leave the >matter at that. Thus, there would be no extraordinary cut (that is, no >cut beyond the levels other sciences are being cut) to the authorized >funding level for behavioral and social science research. Aside from >avoiding such a cut, the main reason to go along with the amendment is >that it would lessen the likelihood the issue of behavioral and social >science funding would arise when the measure goes to the full House for >consideration. In this respect, the majority staffers are right. The >last thing we want is to have the matter opened up on the House floor >because there are many House members who would happily eliminate not just >the organizational structure but also the funding for these sciences. At >least on the Science Committee the members value science. The price for >going along with the amendment, however, is likely to be that the >programs of SBE would become auxiliary programs in the other >directorates. For example, Human Cognition and Perception might >logically be placed in the Directorate for Computer and Information >Sciences and Engineering. It would then become a subdivision of computer >science. Among other things, it is that loss of character of the >programs and their taking on the research priorities of other >directorates rather than the research priorities of the disciplines they >now fund that makes the Walker amendment difficult to swallow. > So, how to address the expected Walker amendment is a critical >question. The best thing that could happen would be to find someone who >Walker respects who could convince him to let the matter lie. We >(Washington reps. for the behavioral and social sciences) are trying to >find such a person. We have also been giving Rep. George Brown materials >to bolster an argument against the amendment and to support a possible >counter or substitute amendment. Mr. Brown, however, will lose since >there are not enough Democratic votes on the Science Committee to >counteract a party line vote by the Republicans. In the markup today, >all Democratic amendments lost by party-line votes, and all Republican >amendments, save one that would have changed the name of the National >Science Foundation to the National Science and Engineering Foundation, >won on essentially party-line votes. Another consideration is that the >Senate is likely not to change the structure of NSF in its authorization. > Banking on that, we could 1) try to get Walker not to offer the >amendment, 2) fight it in committee if he offers it anyway, 3) take our >chances on the floor, and 4) work with the Senate to have the adverse >actions of the House taken out of the bill in conference with the Senate, >or, alternatively, 5) argue that the Senate should pass no authorization >bill at all but rather simply extend the previous authorization for >another year. (Lack of action in the Senate would neutralize whatever >might happen in the House authorization and leave NSF with a higher >authorization level than would be the case were the House authorization >bill levels to be approved.) Those are the items the Washington >representatives will be discussing to try to arrive at a prudent course >of action. > Here is a synopsis of the NSF authorization bill as it stands now: >The overall authorization level for NSF is $3,126,000,000--$148,932,000 >less than APPROPRIATED for the current fiscal year and $234,000,000 less >than requested by the President for fiscal year 1996. Research and >related activities would be authorized at $2,236,300,000--$46,597,000 >less than FY95. And within research and related activities, SBE research >would be authorized at $111,300,000--$2,490,000 less than FY95, and >$11,570,000 less than requested by the President. The authorization is >for two years. Figures are not given by directorate for FY97. But the >overall authorization level is $3,171,400,000. Research and related >activities is set at $2,286,200,000. In addition to funding levels, the >bill deals with several policy items: The bill requires NSF to continue >with its strategic planning process and submit reports on these plans to >Congress and the President. NSF is directed to take measures to link >research more closely to teaching. This may mean that future grant >proposals will need to explain how teaching is incorporated into the >proposed research. Matching funds required under the Academic Research >Facilities Modernization Act of 1988 are not to be considered facilities >costs for purposes of determining indirect cost rates. Persons working >temporarily at NSF will need to disclose their finances in the same way >permanent employees are now required to disclose them. Universities are >required under the bill to give students in the National Guard military >leaves of absence if they are called to active duty other than active >duty for training. NSF grant money may not be used for lobbying. >Finally, the bill renames the Critical Technologies Institute. It is to >be called the Science and Technology Policy Institute. >*********End of Forwarded >Message******************************************** > From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Jun 19 11:51:02 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25474; Mon, 19 Jun 95 11:51:01 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06727; 19 Jun 95 11:50 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00441; Mon, 19 Jun 95 08:47:16 PDT Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: Bruce Hayden Cc: PI@lternet.edu Subject: Re: Network logo In-Reply-To: <9506161750.AA18655@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Just for everyone's information about past use of the LTER Network logo: I have followed a general policy of keeping the logo for Network Office- and Network- (that is, LTER Executive and Coordinating Committee) sanctioned products and activities. I have redirected attempts by a couple of groups to use it on workshop materials to try to sell an event, noting that it meant Network sanction, primary participation and "ownership." >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Stephanie Martin University of Washington 206/ 543-6764 Publications/Public Information College of Forest Resources Fax: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Box 352100 Seattle, WA 98195-2100 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> On Fri, 16 Jun 1995, Bruce Hayden wrote: > LTER & Publishers > > VIEWS FROM THE SITES > > CDR (Tillman) -- Its always difficult to know where a deca-octa-pod is > going. I suggest that we follow a free market system, and not chose one > publisher for cross-site comparisons. It would limit us, and put too much > weight on that series as our major means of communication. > > CPR (Burke) -- I am not sure what the negative aspects of going with one > publisher would be, and I can see large numbers of positive ones. > > HFR (Foster) Sounds like Springer is trying to rope us into a series. We > have not > reached the stage for decisions yet, but I like the flexibility of free > market approaches. I will check with our science team. > > JRN (Schlesinger) -- I believe that the sites should be allowed to > negotiate on their own for a publisher, and the Jornada has feelers out to > publishers other than Springer. > > KBS (Robertson) -- KBS likes the idea of a single publisher IF it means > we get a better deal on the price of the end-product > > KNZ (Knapp) -- I have been in favor of a site synthesis series all > along...indeed we were hoping the network publications committee would take > the lead for us in negotiations so that we could just write our site > synthesis. (Konza is close to a deal with Oxford.) > > LUQ (Waide) -- My compromise was let those with contracts publish, then > negotiate a series with a single publisher. Lugo) -- We don't have a strong > feeling for one or another publisher. > > NWT (Seastedt) -- I'm happy to use either publisher and will go with the > flow. I'm not convinced a series is that much stronger than individual > site volumes. > > NET (Franklin) -- I favor an official (but voluntary) series. > > NTL (Magnuson) -- I prefer to see a series in the same press on a voluntary > basis for site synthesis. > > PAL & MCM (Smith) -- You should know that both the Palmer and Dry Valleys > LTERs are in advanced stage of a "synthesis" (really more like current > status/knowledge for new sites) volumes working with American Geophysical > Union (as volumes within their Antarctic Research Series). Manuscripts are > due now for the Palmer volume and it is supposed to go to press this > coming fall. Perhaps what is needed is a mechanism to identify various > independent synthesis volumes (even though they are by different > publishers) as a contribution to the LTER "synthesis series" (perhaps > identified by an LTER synthesis series number and appropriate logo?). > > SEV (Milne) -- I support going with Springer for site volumes because a > series from one publisher would yield a consistent looking series. > > VCR (Hayden) -- I favor a series with a negotiated publisher. Network > credits are important. It helps NSF sell our program and that is > important. Visibility is important in these days of few $$$. We need to > sell our network as well as our sites. > > > WHERE WE STAND > > "Its always difficult to know where a deca-octa-pod is going." Tillman. > > David is dead on. Decision making (usually at CC meeting time) seems to > have a time constant of about 2 years. That is how long it takes us to > come to a collective decision and implement it. Once most of the legs have > vectored in the same general direction we declare a direction to the > movement of our corpus. > > The call for site freedom, site self-responsibility and site self-oversight > on site level publication is still strong within our network. The value of > series is recognized. We (site PIs) still talk of free market approach (not > a bad idea for ideas) and of intellectual freedom, etc. On the issue site > publications with a common publisher, we are split and have been for some > time on a Network selected publisher. The support is just not there to do > it that way. Not only that but the sites have acted on site-level > publications and publishers. Decisions have already been made regarding > site synthesis publications. > > Earlier two sites (CWT and HBR) published volumes about their LTER sites. > CPR is signed with Springer. KNZ is very close to signing with Oxford. > PAL and MCM are putting out volumes this fall with AGU in its Antarctic > Research Series. JRN is negotiating with an undisclosed publisher for > their volume. In short, we (now) have multiple publishers for this go > around of site synthesis volumes. > > Ray Smith offered that even though there were several publishers perhaps a > common logo, the LTER logo, could be used as a signal or trademark of > network membership and network contribution to the advance of our science. > > I have learned from Bob Waide that NSF is concerned about the use of the > LTER LOGO without LTER NETWORK approval. There are two issues: 1) does > LOGO use require network sanction and 2) can sites use the logo without > network endorsement, i.e. are the sites "entitled owners" of the LOGO and > can decide for themselves? > > So, the issue of a copyright for the LTER LOGO by the LTER CC is open for > discussion. A copyright would require that users seek permission of the CC > to use the LOGO. Is this a good idea? It would permit volumes published by > different publishers to use it on the dust jackets and elsewhere and the > network would be visible. > > So, please indicate your views on the following: > > A. Authorization to use the LTER logo should require > 1. network approval. > 2. either network or site approval. > 3. use of logo should be consistent with a Network policy statement. > 3. need no form of approval. > > B. Use of logo on site synthesis volumes > 1. Site synthesis volumes should use the LTER logo as an identifier. > 2. Leave up to the site. > > C. LTER logo on site publications in general. > 1. Site publications should use the logo where possible. > 2. The logo should be reserved for network publications. > > D. To insure proper use of the LTER Logo should it be copyrighted so that > use permission is required. > 1. Yes > 2. No > 3. Don't care. > > THANKS FOR YOUR HELP. Jim Gosz will be back from Europe in a few days and > I will bring him up to speed on the issues and key all sites posted. > > > From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Jun 19 17:57:42 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27457; Mon, 19 Jun 95 17:57:41 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00220; 19 Jun 95 17:57 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03806; Mon, 19 Jun 95 14:56:04 PDT Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:56:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NAS Report on ESA -- Executive Summary on Net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The National Academy of Sciences has placed the executive summary of its report on "Science and the Endangered Species Act" on the Web at URL: http://xerxes.nas.edu/nap/online/esa/ . The executive summary is 45K long. If you can't access it on the Web but would like an email copy, send a message to Steve Young (young.steve@epamail.epa.gov). From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Jun 24 11:18:48 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16879; Sat, 24 Jun 95 11:18:47 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23024; 24 Jun 95 11:18 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28509; Sat, 24 Jun 95 08:18:05 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA24030; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 09:16:49 -0600 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 09:16:49 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #84 - DOE Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Number 84: June 23, 1995 DOE FY1996 Budget Bill Goes To House Floor - Labs, Fusion, BES The House fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill for the Department of Energy, H.R. 1905, passed the House Appropriations Committee on June 20. It is scheduled to go to the House floor sometime next week. The accompanying report, House Report 104-149, provides details of the Committee's views. The report states that "funding recommendations for Department of Energy programs in fiscal year 1996 are significantly below the Department's fiscal year 1996 budget request in many areas." Selected portions of the report are summarized below, and in FYI #85: LABORATORY CONSOLIDATION: "The Committee believes the Department is maintaining a facility and laboratory structure larger than necessary to manage and execute programs.... Consequently, the Committee expects the Department to review critically its facility needs and be prepared to justify the existence of all current facilities and laboratories in the next budget cycle." Under the category of ENERGY SUPPLY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES: FUSION PROGRAM: "The Committee recommendation for the fusion program is $229,144,000, a decrease of $136,901,000 [or 37.4%] from the budget request of $366,045,000. [FY95 appropriation: $368.4 million.] "Given the mandate to reduce the budget deficit, the Committee is not able to provide funding to support the direction of the fusion energy program as requested by the Department. It will be necessary for the Department to develop a revised program strategy for fusion energy at a much reduced funding level. Budget realities dictate that future funding will not be available to pursue the course envisioned by the Department's budget request which included funding both the International Thermal Experimental Reactor and the Tokamak Physics Experiment project. "The fusion program is currently being reviewed by the President's Council on Science and Technology, but results of this review are not yet available. With the funding provided in fiscal year 1996, the Committee expects the Department to propose a fusion program which supports advancement of key research areas and exploration of alternatives at a much smaller scale in laboratories and universities. This plan should be developed in consultation with the fusion community and Congress, but with the understanding that future funding levels are unlikely to increase and could well decrease below the fiscal year 1996 recommendation." BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: "The Committee recommendation for Basic Energy Sciences is $792,661,000, a decrease of $18,758,000 [or 2.3%] from the budget request of $811,419,000. [FY95 appropriation: $733.9 million.] "The Committee acknowledges the important and essential contributions of the Department in the Nation's basic science and research programs. The collaboration between the national labs and the university community has provided the foundation for scientific breakthroughs and achievements in energy-related research. To continue this progress, the Committee recommendation strongly supports the budget request to enhance the utilization of the Department's fundamental science and user facilities." "Within available funds, $1,000,000 is provided to fund peer-reviewed research on the potential energy applications of sonoluminescence. Sonoluminescence is an effect in which highly concentrated sound waves in liquids generate very short bursts of light from bubbles in the liquid. Calculations have suggested the possibility of its use in inertial fusion applications." "The Committee has included the budget request of $8,000,000 for research and design and conceptual design activities for a spallation neutron source" [intended to replace the ANS as a neutron scattering source.] Within BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES, MATERIALS SCIENCES would receive $368,400,000, an increase [of 5.8%] from the budget request of $348,297,000. [FY95 appropriation: $272.3 million.] ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee recommendation does not include funding for the University and Science Education programs. [FY95 appropriation: $69.6 million.] ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Jun 24 11:22:24 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16949; Sat, 24 Jun 95 11:22:22 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23412; 24 Jun 95 11:22 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28524; Sat, 24 Jun 95 08:21:56 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA24059; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 09:20:41 -0600 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 09:20:40 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #86 - DOE Mark Up (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Number 86: June 23, 1996 Not a Pretty Picture: House Science Committee Marks Up DOE R&D Bill What was scheduled to take only a few hours on Tuesday turned into a battle that was waged over parts of three days this week as the full House Science Committee struggled to complete its work on H.R. 1816, the Department of Energy Civilian R&D Authorization Act of 1995. This mark up was notable for what seemed at times to approach almost open warfare between committee Republicans and Democrats. Lost in the process was the committee's bipartisan tradition, with other losses still to be tallied. Although the committee considered numerous amendments, the most substantial action occurred almost unnoticed at the beginning of the mark up when House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) offered an "amendment in the nature of a substance." In plain English, Walker substituted a complete bill with new funding levels for some programs in place of the bill that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's (R-CA) subcommittee had completed work on earlier this month (see FYIs #79, 80.) The committee quickly agreed to make this version the working substitute, increasing spending limits in a number of areas, such as high energy physics, nuclear physics, and basic energy sciences. Walker said that he was able to find additional money by working with the House leadership. Although this would ordinarily be considered good news, committee Democrats expressed great consternation at the way in which this was done. Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) and his Democratic colleagues pointed out that during the subcommittee mark up, Rep. Rohrabacher had resisted any attempt to increase spending levels since it would break the self-imposed spending cap the subcommittee was operating under. This discussion set the tenor of the next two full days of the mark up. Most attention centered not as much on science and technology as it did politics and process. As one senior Democrat quipped, "I really don't give a damn about the science, but I love the politics." Also coming into play was Walker's attempt to make his committee relevant to the appropriations process. Although this has been a long sought objective of the committee, Democratic members largely derided these efforts, one saying, "here we are trying to call ourselves relevant...the appropriations committees aren't paying any attention to this." The committee agreed (25 - 12) to cut funding for the Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor. Rohrabacher opposed this amendment, comparing this reactor favorably to that of the fusion program where he said Congress is told, "give us a chance and a gazillion dollars and we might be able to produce something in 40 years." The committee also defeated an amendment which would have killed ITER by a vote of 14 - 26. Thursday's mark up continued a controversy from the night before when Chairman Walker called a committee vote on a Democratic amendment to increase authorization levels while a vote was underway on the House floor. At the start of the Thursday mark up Brown cited the "bitter controversy" that had arisen, and asked for a re-vote. Walker said that the committee had not recessed, but agreed to a new vote. The amendment by Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) failed a second time, which came as no surprise since there was little cross-over voting by committee members of either party on most amendments. Also of note was an amendment offered, but then withdrawn, by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to establish a DOE lab closing commission, modeled after the base closing commission. Walker said that this was a "very important point" promising that hearings would be held later this year. This is, Walker said, an "issue that will not be ignored." The committee defeated an amendment offered by Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN) to make an immediate one-third cut in the number of DOE laboratory employees. This lost by a vote of 17 - 23. After a number of parliamentary moves, the committee agreed to take the $25 million that was saved by deauthorizing the gas turbine reactor and increase the fusion authorization. The committee moved into new ground during its consideration of an amendment by Rep. Mike Doyle, a Democrat representing the Pittsburgh, PA area. Doyle sought to restore funding to DOE's fossil fuels program by making a series of offsetting cuts in DOE facility funding -- most or all of which are located in Republican districts. Republicans cried foul at Doyle's selection. Doyle replied that he did not check where these facilities were, saying they were selected on their merits. Walker then offered an amendment to Doyle's amendment, which would have denied considerable funding for DOE's Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center. Walker said he would withdraw his amendment if Doyle would as well. The reaction of committee members to Walker's amendment was overwhelming. One freshman Republican turned to Walker (one of the most powerful figures in the House Republican leadership) and said of the amendment that the committee did not have time for "stupid stuff like that." Brown said that Walker's characterization of Doyle's motives "could be taken down." Brown continued, "that kind of tactic is what exacerbates the feelings on both sides." Walker, after considerable discussion, apologized and then withdrew his amendment. Doyle's original amendment failed by a vote of 21 to 23. So what does this all mean? The way this process is supposed to work is that authorizing bills are to be passed before appropriations bills. That did not happen this year, as is usually the case. That, in and of itself, would not be news. What is news is the new tenor on the committee. The House Science Committee, even during its intense debates over the SSC and the space station, was always notable for its bipartisan nature. While all of this was going on, the House Appropriations Committee met and approved H.R. 1905, the FY 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. The House will vote on this bill next week. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Jun 24 11:25:44 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16965; Sat, 24 Jun 95 11:25:43 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23741; 24 Jun 95 11:25 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28519; Sat, 24 Jun 95 08:20:56 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA24046; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 09:19:41 -0600 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 09:19:40 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #85 - DOE Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Number 85: June 23, 1995 DOE FY1996 Budget Bill Goes To House Floor - HEP, Nuclear, ICF The House fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill for the Department of Energy, H.R. 1905, passed the House Appropriations Committee on June 20. It is scheduled to go to the House floor sometime next week. The accompanying report, House Report 104-149, provides details of the Committee's views. The report states that "funding recommendations for Department of Energy programs in fiscal year 1996 are significantly below the Department's fiscal year 1996 budget request in many areas." Selected portions of the report are summarized in FYI #84 and below: Under the category of GENERAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES: "The General Science and Research Activities programs are concerned with understanding the nature of matter and energy and the fundamental forces and particles of nature.... While these programs are not directly associated with energy technology in the near- or mid-term, they support basic research whose aim is to provide new knowledge which is expected to have long-term scientific and technological impacts on energy development and utilization and on other aspects of our society. "The Committee's funding recommendation for General Science and Research Activities reflects the continued role of the federal government in fundamental scientific research where research is not market-driven and is difficult for the private sector to conduct. The Committee strongly supports the budget request [of $100 million] for the Scientific Facilities Utilization Initiative to enhance and increase the use of fundamental science and user facilities, but due to severe funding constraints, has found it necessary to reduce the overall budget request. It is the Committee's hope that Congressional actions such as merging operating and capital funding along with a lessening of departmental internal regulations and oversight reviews will compensate in part for this reduction." HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS: "Due to budget constraints, the Committee recommendation for high energy physics is $677,000,000, a reduction of $8,552,000 [or 1.3%] from the budget request of $685,552,000." [FY95 appropriation: $642.1 million.] NUCLEAR PHYSICS: "The recommendation for nuclear energy physics is $304,500,000, a reduction of $16,578,000 [or 5.2%] from the budget request of $321,078,000." [FY95 appropriation: $331.5 million.] PROGRAM DIRECTION: "Funding for program direction has been reduced [by 12.8%] to $9,500,000 from the request of $10,900,000." [FY95 appropriation: $10.4 million.] TOTAL, GENERAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES: $991,000,000; reduced by 2.6% from a request of $1,017,530,000. [FY95 appropriation: $984.0 million.] Under the category of ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE WEAPONS ACTIVITIES: INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION: "The Committee is pleased to recognize the achievements of the Naval Research Laboratory which has recently completed the Nike laser, and the University of Rochester which has completed the OMEGA laser. The Committee has consistently supported these facilities and expects both to contribute to the research and technology development efforts in the inertial confinement fusion program. "Funding for construction of the National Ignition Facility has been deferred without prejudice by the Committee. The Committee supports a strong stockpile stewardship program in the absence of underground nuclear testing, but is concerned that it will be difficult to assure funds are available in the future to support this project as well as other critical needs in the weapons program. "While not agreeing to the start of capital construction, the Committee has provided $33,600,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request, to continue preliminary design activities associated with the National Ignition Facility. This will permit the Department to move beyond the conceptual stage of the facility design and begin some construction design of the conventional facilities and the laser and target special equipment." ############### From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Tue Jun 27 12:42:07 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA24683; Tue, 27 Jun 95 12:42:05 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00622; 27 Jun 95 12:42 EDT Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by lternet (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14861; Tue, 27 Jun 95 09:38:09 PDT Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29346; 27 Jun 95 12:36 EDT Received: from [128.143.43.88] (bootp-43-88.bootp.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA24665; Tue, 27 Jun 95 12:36:43 EDT Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 12:36:42 EDT Message-Id: <9506271636.AA24665@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: PI@lternet.edu From: Bruce Hayden Status: OR PIs The preliminary results survey begun last month in preparation for the OMB visit to the VCR was reviewed at the Executive Committee meeting in Seattle and it was agreed that the data collected will be very useful and that we need to finish this work. It was concluded that the information will be essential in defending LTER in future funding decisiions. The nubmers show that we are indeed a tremendous research bargain. You will find in this mailing the numbers as we have them today! Please feel free to edit them Definitions and explanation of the categories. The EC decided that some additional information was needed and two new categories are added to our request for information. _____________________________________________________________ THANKS FOR YOUR HELP. THIS INFORMATION WILL HELP US ALL! _____________________________________________________________ Number of PIs -- This is the number of investigators that are engaged in the work of the site, participate in governance of the LTER program at the site. This might be the list of PIs on the proposal Plus new additions and minus people who have moved on. Note that there is a new survey category "Non-PI Scientists at Site" (see below). Average $ per PI (x1000) -- This is intended to be the number of dollars that an average PI at your site has at his disposal (allocated to him or her for a project year). The PI as an individual has "control" over this subset of project funds. Number of institutions -- This should reflect the institutions represented by the PIs at the project. If you consider someone a PI then his institution counts. Institutional Overhead Rate -- This is to be the EFFECTIVE OVERHEAD RATE. By that we mean the negotiated overhead rate less institutional kickbacks of one sort or another. Some sites get a % of overhead back to the project. Some sites have won staff support paid for by the institution. The number here should consist of a) the overhead rate on your proposal less the kickback amount. % of budget spent on infrastructure -- The concept here is what percent of the LTER budget is spent on non-expendables that will stay with the project from year to year and have value in the subsequent years. This might include average annual equipment acquisition, field site resident staff, field site costs including site facilities fabrication, development and maintenance, and other things that are in place for the years ahead. It is understood that there are read differences between sites as to what is considered the infrastructure for present and future research. % of budget spent locally at site -- The central question here has to do with the impact the project has on the local economy at the site. Since some sites have the field station at the host institution effectively most of the money is spent in the local economy. Money spent at affiliated institutions should not be included. Please note that this is an estimate as most of us do not have an audit which provides this number directly. Graduate Students -- This should include all students who have stipend support from LTER funds AND those students who use the LTER resources and infrastructure in the completion of their graduate studies. Undergraduate Students -- This should include all REU students who have stipend support from LTER funds AND those undergraduate students who conducted research and used the LTER resources and infrastructure in the completion of their undergraduate research studies. Other Research $/LTER $ -- (NEW) Many sites noted that they won other dollars besides LTER core grant dollars and that the synergism should be recognized. To that end please estimate the number of research dollars won by site PIs that benefit the site, i.e. expand research activities at the site, provide additional resources that permit more research at the site, and awards that LTER was used in to leverage and help wind additional funds. Please make the best estimate you can for this category. Non-PI Scientists at Site -- (NEW) This tabulation should include all non-PI scientists who worked at the site, used site LTER resources or collaborated with site PI on comparative studies. This number should have been in your annual report sent to Mike Allen. ______________________________________________________________________________ AND BNZ CPR CWT HFR JRN MCM KNZ NTL NWT PAL SEV VCR AVE. Number of PIs 20 12 13 27 13 11 8 34 15 12 10 10 24 15.8 $ per PI (X1000) ? 27 10 22 25 40 60 9 19 15 38 10 12 23.9 No. of Instit. 4 4 3 7 8 7 8 9 4 3 5 1 8 5.6 Instit. Overhead rate 31 37 15 26 8 26 66 27 43 26 26 8 21 27.4 % of budget for infrastructure 30 12 51 23 30 10 8 10 15 8 23 28 25 20.3 % of budget spent locally 100 80 100 25 70 70 0 100 25 100 0 100 30 58.3 Grad. students 45 19 13 19 12 10 10 11 20 8 12 20 40 16.2 Undergrad. stud. 18 4 15 21 20 4 4 13 15 10 8 20 19 12.75 Non-LTER $/LTER $ 2.1 Non-PI Scientists at site 22 ________________________________________________________________________ hope the table came out ok VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM :----------------+--------------------------------+---------------------: |Bruce P. Hayden | Dept. Environmental Sciences | bphvirginia.edu | |(804) 924-0545 | Clark Hall, Univ. of Virginia | bph@lternet.edu | |(804) 924-7761 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 | (804) 982-2137(fax)| :----------------+--------------------------------+---------------------: From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Jun 28 14:04:04 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04821; Wed, 28 Jun 95 14:04:02 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28954; 28 Jun 95 14:04 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02507; Wed, 28 Jun 95 10:59:18 PDT Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 10:59:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: cDybas@nsf.gov Subject: NBS DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT ON APPROPRIATIONS (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This statement is being made available by NBS to those who ask for Director Pulliam's reaction to the House Appropriations Committee vote on the National Biological Service: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Statement of NBS Director Ron Pulliam In Response to June 27 House Appropriations Committee Vote The House Appropriations Committee has voted to devastate the biological science capabilities of the Department of the Interior by reducing National Biological Service funding by one-third and crippling its ability to serve the American public and the managers of our national parks, refuges and other public lands. The NBS has a simple mandate -- it is a research agency that provides the sound science needed to manage our natural resources. This scientific information is shared not only with resource managers at the federal and state levels, but also with industry and businesses, private land owners, developers, planners, and the American public in general. Contrary to the charges made by some fear mongers on the Hill, NBS is non-advocacy and does not participate in regulatory decisions. This vote will debilitate effective management of the vast commercial and recreational fisheries of the Great Lakes, Chesapeake and San Francisco Bays, Puget Sound, and our major rivers, by denying decision makers the knowledge of changing conditions. States will be hampered in their efforts to manage migratory birds, including waterfowl and other gamebirds. Efforts to solve control problems for exotic species -- such as zebra mussels, killer bees, purple loosestrife, brown tree snakes -- affecting industry, recreation, native species, and in some cases the health of American citizens, will be crippled. Work to find cures for wildlife diseases such as duck plague and avian cholera will be hamstrung. This will affect agricultural interests, recreational hunters, and the wildlife itself. New drugs critical for fish culture will not be available to that industry. Timber companies and petroleum producers, as well as other industry, will no longer have unbiased counsel on how to protect plant and animal species while maintaining productivity. Congress wants to require risk assessment and the consideration of sound science in management decisions, but those decision makers will have nowhere to go for those assessments and that sound science. The decision to consolidate NBS with the U.S. Geological Survey reflects a misunderstanding of the basic responsibilities of the two agencies. In particular, it fails to accommodate the requirements of national park and wildlife refuge managers for short-term scientific advice in day-to-day operations. This vote is a decision to throw the baby out with the bath water. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Jun 29 18:19:37 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11168; Thu, 29 Jun 95 18:19:35 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08897; 29 Jun 95 18:19 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13641; Thu, 29 Jun 95 15:16:13 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02981; Thu, 29 Jun 1995 16:14:56 -0600 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 16:14:56 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: House Science Committee Marks Up NSF Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR >Yesterday, at 11:30PM, after nearly 10 hours of marking up two NOAA >bills, the space station authorization bill, and a NIST "core >programs" bill, the full House Science Committee marked up and >reported out the NSF Authorization bill for FY 1996. > >A number of amendments were adopted to the version of the bill >reported out by the House Basic Research Subcommittee on June 14, >however, none of the amendments changed the funding levels authorized >in the bill. > >Among the amendments adopted by the full Committee were: > >1) a provision calling on OSTP, along with other relevant agencies, to >prepare a report on indirect costs; > >2) a provision limiting the Foundation to not more than 6 Assistant >Directors; > >3) a provision designed to discourage earmarks that bypass the >competitive review process. > >Additionally, an amendment drafted by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) >that would have barred NSF or any of its grantees from using race, >sex, ethnicity, or national origin as a criterion for support, WAS NOT >offered. Instead, this issue is expected to be addressed in the >committee's report that will accompany the bill. > >Finally, Rep Joe Barton (R-TX) offered an amendment to change the name >of the Foundation to the National Science and Engineering Foundation >and the National Science Board to the National Science and Engineering >Board. The amendment was defeated 22-16. > >What follows below is a recapitulation of the bill as reported by the >subcommittee and amended by last night's mark up. > >Summary of H.R. 1852: NSF Reauthorization Bill for FY 1995 > >The bill authorizes funding for NSF at levels consistent with the >House budget resolution -- $3.126 billion for FY 1996 and $3.1714 >billion for FY 1997. For the Research and Related Activities Account, >this translates into a 2.3% cut from FY 1995, a cut that is roughly >proportionately applied to each of the research directorates. EHR is >authorized at $600 million for both years, an increase of $1 million >over the request. > > >Sec. 101 Authorized to be Appropriated > >FY 1996 -- $3,126,000,000 > >R&RA $2,226,300,000 > >MPS $ 632,200,000 >ENG $ 311,600,000 >BIO $ 293,300,000 >GEO $ 408,800,000 >CISE $ 249,500,000 >SBE $ 111,300,000 >Polar $ 156,000,000 >USAP Log. $ 62,600,000 >CTI $ 1,000,000 > >EHR $ 600,000,000 >MRE $ 70,000,000 >ARI $ 100,000,000 >S&E $ 120,000,000 >OIG $ 4,500,000 >Relocation $ 5,200,000 > >FY 1997 -- $3,171,400,000 > >R&RA $ 2,286,200,000 >EHR $ 600,000,000 >MRE $ 55,000,000 >ARI $ 100,000,000 >S&E $ 120,000,000 >OIG $ 5,000,000 >Relocation$ 5,200,000 > >Sec. 102 Proportional Reductions > >If the appropriation is less than the authorized amount, the >reductions shall be taken proportionately from the subcategories. > > >Sec. 103 Consultation and Representation Expenses > >No more than $10,000 may be used in each fiscal year for official >consultation, representation or other extraordinary expenses. >Determination of the Director shall be final and conclusive upon the >accounting officers of the Government. > >Sec. 104 Transfer Authority >The Director may propose transfers to or from any category in Section >101 in the amount of $500,000 or less. The Director may propose For >transfers between categories in excess of $500,000 provided the >Committee receives proper notification. > >Title II General Provisions > >Sec 201 Annual Report > >The Director shall submit an annual report to the President with the >annual budget submission. The report shall contain a strategic plan >or an update to a previous plan with overall three-year goals and >goals for each major activity, including each scientific directorate, >EHR, and polar programs; describe how goals relate to national needs >and how they will exploit new scientific and technological >opportunities; identify criteria for assessing progress toward goals; >review progress during preceding year; and summarize plans in terms of >goals and contributions to multi-agency research and education >initiatives; recommendations for the Foundation; and information on >the acquisition and disposition of any patents. > >Sec. 202 National Research Facilities > >The Director shall provide, as part of the annual report, an annual >plan for construction, repair, upgrades of national research >facilities with cost estimates and operation and maintenance >estimates. Only specifically authorized funds may be obligated for >construction in excess of $50,000,000 > >Sec. 203 Eligibility for Research Facility Awards > >Academic Research Facilities Modernization act amended by striking >first sentence and inserting "The Director shall give priority to >institutions or consortia that have not received such funds in the >preceding 5 years, except that this sentence shall not apply to >previous funding received for the same multiyear project." > >Sec. 204 Administrative Amendments > >Amends section of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, the >National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1976, and the >National Science Foundation Act of 1988. > >Sec. 205 Indirect Costs > >Matching funds required for Academic Research Facilities Modernization >Act of 1988 shall not be considered facilities costs for purposed of >determining indirect cost rates. > >OSTP, along with the relevant agencies, is to prepare a report on ways >to reduce indirect costs. > >Sec. 206 Research Instrumentation and Facilities > >NSF shall incorporate guidelines for the use and operation of >Foundation-supported research in its notice of Grant General >Conditions. > >Sec. 207 Financial Disclosure > >Temporary employees of NSF shall be subject to same financial >disclosure laws as permanent employees. > >Sec. 208 Educational Leave of Absence for Active Duty > >In order to be eligible to receive a grant, Institutions of higher >education must have policies that allow members of National Guard or >reserve to return from active duty and be restored to pre-active duty >status without loss of credits, scholarships, grants, or tuition or >other fees paid. > >Sec. 209 Prohibition of Lobbying Activities > >No authorized funds shall be available to promote public support or >opposition to a legislative proposal on which congressional action is >not complete. > >Sec. 210 Science Studies Institute > >The Critical Technologies Institute is renamed the Science Studies >Institute. > >Sec. 211 Educational Impact > >The impact that an NSF award would have on undergraduate or graduate >education is to be a factor in any award decision. > >Sec. 212 Divisions of the Foundation > >NSF is limited to not more than 6 Assistant Directors and is to submit >a report on how it will reorganize to meet this requirement by Nov 15, >1995. > >Sec. 214 Elgibility of Awards > >This section makes persons who have received federal funds for a >project that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award >process after FY 1995 ineligible from participating in any NSF program >for a period of 5 years. > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jun 30 11:59:45 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13521; Fri, 30 Jun 95 11:59:44 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27037; 30 Jun 95 11:59 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19342; Fri, 30 Jun 95 08:55:40 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09441; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 09:54:17 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA07397; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 09:48:18 -0600 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 09:48:17 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: USGCRP Seminar - Climate Change and Human Health (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This is a head's up for a major new effort that seems to be developing. We are in the loop on this and will continue to send information. ("The Hanta virus epidemic has something of a silver lining to it!!") Epstein will be in Albuquerque soon to discuss a range of research opportunities. jim gosz > US Global Change Research Program Second Monday Seminar Series >Announcement > > > CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN HEALTH > > >WHAT ROLES DO CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE PLAY IN THE EMERGENCE AND >RE-EMERGENCE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN HUMANS AND ANIMALS? > >WHAT CHANGES HAVE ALREADY BEEN OBSERVED? > >WHAT CHANGES COULD OCCUR IN THE FUTURE? > > >MONDAY, JULY 10, 1995, 3:15 to 4:45 PM >Rayburn House Office Bldg., Room B369 >(Reception Following) > > >SPEAKER >Dr. Paul R. Epstein >Cambridge Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health, Cambridge, MA > >INTRODUCTION >Mary Gant, Assistant to the Director for Legislation, National Institute >for Environmental Health Science (NIEHS), Bethesda, MD > >OVERVIEW >Perhaps the most well known example of an emerging virus outbreak in the US >in recent time is the "hantavirus", which is resident in rodent populations >and can be transmitted from rodents to humans. Hantavirus broke out in the >southwestern US in 1993, in the aftermath of heavy spring rains following >six years of drought. In the case of the hantavirus there was a relatively >clear set of feedbacks leading to the outbreak of this virus. Prolonged >drought altered the ecological balance in the southwestern US by bringing >about changes in the balance between the populations of rodent predators >(coyotes, owls, snakes) and rodents, while the rains led to an abundance of >rodent food (pinion nuts and grasshoppers). Rodent populations increased >ten-fold from May, 1992 to May, 1993. Hantavirus was amplified and >transmitted to humans as a consequence of environmental changes driven by a >change in climate and climate variability. > >Dr. Epstein will discuss the implications of climate change and the >emergence of diseases and viruses such as the hantavirus, dengue fever, >ebola, cholera, malaria, and eastern equine encephalitis. These "signals" >of global change can be costly to health, commerce, tourism, and >transportation. > > > >SUMMARY >Temperature, precipitation, and humidity are critical determinants of >breeding sites, generation times, and intrinsic parasitic incubation >periods of disease vectors. Bioclimatic conditions interact with ecological >thresholds to influence their geographical extent. Interannual climate >fluctuations thus alter the altitudinal and longitudinal presence of many >disease vectors by allowing the establishment of new breeding sites and >bursts of disease carriers. Examples of such events include the 1994 >drought in Puerto Rico, which led to a dengue fever upsurge (due to local >securing of water). A wet spring also preceded dengue fever in Costa Rica >and Fortaleza, Brazil. Changes in the underlying climate are thus likely >to contribute to the redistribution of disease vectors into new latitudes >and new altitudes. > >While proliferating megacities and non-biodegradable containers provide the >setting, the influence of climate must be viewed against the backdrop of >social vulnerability. Studies in Mexico demonstrate significant >correlations of dengue fever with temperature and rain. Dengue fever has >also appeared at higher altitudes in Costa Rica, Colombia, and India, than >previously reported, as temperatures have warmed. The northern extent of >Aedes aegypti (dengue) in the US is now at approximately 35 N. The >National Weather Service projects climate conditions conducive for a >significant increase of dengue fever in the southeastern US this summer. > >The occurrence of malaria also resurged in the 1980s and the pace continues >to accelerate. Ecological effects such as road building, clearing, and >deforestation have played important roles in addition to climate. In >deforested areas of northern Honduras, cases of malaria rose from 20,000 in >1987 to 90,000 in 1993. In Pakistan, annual incidence of malaria is highly >correlated with temperature and rainfall variations, and the distribution >of epidemics correlates well with the El Nino signal. Malaria transmission >in the mountains of Rwanda in 1987, an anomalously hot, wet El Nino year, >represented a geographic extension of malaria in altitude. Malaria cases >in Houston, Texas indicate the occurrence of malaria at higher latitudes >than in recent years. These clusters and emerging patterns of malaria are >consistent with climate changes that favor the redistribution and spread of >conditions conducive to malaria. Models project that future climate change >will extend these conditions much further into the Northern and Southern >hemisphere. > >El Nino warm events are associated with upsurges of cholera in Bangladesh, >typhoid, shigellosis and hepatitis in South America (after flooding), viral >encephalitides in Australia, and eastern equine encephalitis in >Massachusetts. Disease events across taxa appear to cluster during ENSO >(El Nino Southern Oscillation) years. > > >Biography of Dr. Paul R. Epstein > > >Dr. Epstein is on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School. For the past >five years he has also served as director of the Cambridge Hospital >multidisciplinary AIDS program, and has been involved with HIV vaccine >trials. Dr. Epstein has served in medical, teaching, and research >capacities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and has also recently >coordinated and co-edited an eight-part series on health and climate change >for The Lancet. Dr. Epstein is a member of the Harvard School of Public >Health Working Group on Emerging Diseases, a principal author of the >chapter on health effects and climate change for the WHO/WMO/UNEP/IPCC >intergovernmental assessment, and is a member of the federal government's >Working Group on Emerging and Re-Emerging Infectious Diseases. Dr. Epstein >received his bachelor's degree from Cornell University in 1965, his MD from >Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1969, and received a master's degree >in tropical public health from the Harvard School of Public Health in 1983. >In 1986 Dr. Epstein was awarded the Community Service Award for his >outstanding contributions to community health. > > >Biography of Mary Gant > > >Since 1987 Mary Gant has served as Assistant to the Director for >Legislation at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences >(NIEHS). From 1984 to 1987 she served as a senior policy analyst with the >White House Science Office. Ms. Gant also served as a policy analyst in >energy science and energy policy with the Department of Energy. > > >PROPOSED TOPICS FOR FUTURE SEMINARS > > >Clouds and Climate Change >Will clouds amplify or moderate climate change? >What is the role of aerosols in limiting climate change? > >Records of Past Climate Change: Do They Suggest Abrupt Changes in the Future? >What do ice core records reveal about past climate change and rates of change? >What are the implications of past changes for the future? > >Looking at the Earth from Space >What did satellite results tell us in 1995? >What is planned for 1996 and beyond? > >Indicators and Trends of Climate Change >How has climate changed in the recent past? >What has caused these changes? What are the implications? > >Stratospheric Ozone, UV Radiation and Human Health >What is happening to stratospheric ozone? What are the implications? >What new evidence is there on the health effects of increased ultraviolet >(UV) radiation? > > >NEXT SEMINAR SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 > >PLANNED TOPIC - Records of Past Climate Change: Do They Suggest Abrupt >Changes in the Future? > > >Additional information on the US Global Change Research Program and the >USGCRP Second Monday Seminar Series is also available on our internet Home >Page which can be reached on the WorldWide Web at: http//www.usgcrp.gov. > > > > > > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jun 30 17:20:22 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15195; Fri, 30 Jun 95 17:20:21 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09217; 30 Jun 95 17:20 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21877; Fri, 30 Jun 95 14:17:10 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA12154; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 15:15:53 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA07608; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 15:09:55 -0600 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 15:09:54 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Department of Science Hearing (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Amazing stuff going on back there!!! Science Committee Hearing on Department of Science On June 28, 1995, Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) convened a hearing on "Restructuring the Federal Scientific Establishment," which focused on the advisability of establishing a cabinet level Department of Science. Witnesses were:Hon. George Keyworth, Chairman, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Washington, D.C.; Hon. Don Ritter, Chairman, National Environmental Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.; Hon. Henson Moore, President and CEO, The American Forest and Paper Association, Washington, D.C.; and Dr. Joseph Spigai, Director, Engineering and Management Program, University of Maryland. Dr. Keyworth opened by testifying that four problems were eroding public faith in U.S. science: 1) Scientists are spoiled from too much wealth; 2) American science has become a bureaucracy, concerned mostly with self-perpetuation; 3) The integrity of basic research has been compromised by confusing it with national competitiveness; and 4) The conduct of research has changed because of the explosive pace of growth in electronics, computing, and information sciences. In order to regain public trust, Dr. Keyworth said, the research community must set priorities. Only a major structural change in the federal science establishment, beginning with the establishment of a cabinet level Department of Science (DoS), can make this happen. A DoS could enhance our competitiveness if it sought to improve basic research and served as a customer for new technology, but not if it was a tool for promoting government-industry partnerships. Dr. Keyworth indicated that funding for basic research increased at a rate 4 to 6 times faster than the growth of GNP during the early 1980s, resulting in an increase in the science bureaucracy and a decline in the need to set priorities. Politically, he said, the time ripe to establish a DoS. Rep. Schiff (R-NM) said he favors a DoS, but is concerned about setting up a new bureaucracy, one that would engender its own political problems. Rep. Roemer (D-IN) noted that his skepticism of a DoS was shared by former Presidential science advisors Bromley, David, and Stever. He asked what the mission statement of the Department would be and how it would save money. Dr. Keyworth responded that this was a complex question but that the DoS should pursue new knowledge and train people in ways that industry would not. In addition, it should support research in areas supported by the public, such as defense and space science. A DoS could regain the public trust only by imposing accountability on research. The second witness, Rep. Ritter, concurred that the time for establishing a DoS is now. Criticism that a DoS would eliminate the benefits of the current pluralistic system, he testified, were irrelevant. The current system is too big, outdated, and driven by interest groups intent on preserving the existing bureaucracy for training Ph.D.s. Henson Moore testified that it is valid for the Federal government to support both basic and applied research. A DoS would parallel ministries of science in other countries, giving science greater stature, and attracting eminent scientists interested in serving as Secretary of Science. It would also provide a means for coordinating research and setting priorities, activities that do not occur under the current system. Dr. Spigai endorsed a consolidation of cabinet-level departments, reducing the number of cabinet agencies from 14 to 9 -- one of which would be a Department of Science. A DoS would provide a single voice that industry and academe would listen to. Plurality in research opportunities would not be threatened, he testified, because state, private, non-profit and industrial research support would still be available Witnesses agreed that it would not be beneficial to mix research and regulatory activities in a single agency, but expressed widely divergent views about whether applied research should receive federal support. Henson Moore stated that the consortium for research on batteries was an example of a government/industry partnership that was successful. Dr. Spigai responded to a question about priority setting by recommending that the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering should develop a list of priorities based on non-political considerations, from which the Secretary of Science could form the national priorities. Chairman Walker suggested that having a single agency supporting research may close down multiple approaches to similar problems, but witnesses pointed out that a program officer would still be able to fund competing methods or theories. Chairman Walker said that his draft DoS proposal did not include medical research because a national health emergency such as AIDS could overshadow other research priorities. Similarly, DoD was not included because it was too important and too likely to overwhelm other research. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jun 30 18:34:06 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15388; Fri, 30 Jun 95 18:34:04 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20258; 30 Jun 95 18:34 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22270; Fri, 30 Jun 95 15:32:05 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13217; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:30:49 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA07724; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:24:50 -0600 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:24:49 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #90 - S&T Spending Projections (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 90: June 30, 1995 Downsizing the Government: Outlook for Federal Science Program Funding The House of Representatives and the Senate gave final approval yesterday to a seven year budget resolution which will dramatically trim federal spending on science and technology. Speaking in support of the budget resolution designed to eliminate the federal deficit by 2002, Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-PA) proclaimed, "We have proven the naysayers wrong. We have followed through on our promises." This budget resolution is a fiscal blueprint to guide federal taxing and spending over the next seven years. It does not have to be signed by the president, and does not determine specific program spending, which is determined by authorization and appropriations legislation. These bills must be signed by the president, and a White House spokesman has already predicted "a long, hot summer" as Washington moves towards the start of the new fiscal year on October 1. For fiscal year 1996, the thirteen appropriations bills now working their way through Congress are the bills to watch. However, the budget resolution approved yesterday gives a good indication of how Congress intends to fund science and technology programs during the next seven years. These programs are a component of non-defense discretionary spending (i.e., spending which is directly controlled by the annual appropriations process.) The budget resolution calls for $190 billion in savings in non-defense discretionary spending over seven years, as compared to a freeze in current spending. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has prepared figures suggesting what future science spending may be under the budget resolution. In a chart entitled, "Projected Effects of House Budget Resolution on Nondefense R&D" the AAAS adjusted their figures to show constant 1995 dollars for comparison purposes. There are a number of important caveats to these figures. AAAS stresses that these are preliminary estimates. These figures are also based on the House version of the budget resolution, which is somewhat different from the final version that was approved yesterday by the House and Senate. AAAS made a number of assumptions in their calculations. Finally, Congress can change these figures at any point in the future. Our thanks to the AAAS for their preparation of these figures, and their permission to use them. The below selected figures compare current R&D spending with projected spending in FY 2002. They are expressed in FY 1995 dollars adjusted for inflation largely using deflators from the Office of Management and Budget. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: Total NSF R&D declines by 20.7% Research and Related Activity declines by 10.1% Academic Research Infrastructure declines by 67.8% Major Research Equipment declines by 100.0% Education and Human Resources declines by 20.3% DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Total DOE nondefense R&D declines by 47.4% General Science declines by 26.3% Energy Supply R&D declines by 47.8% NASA: Total NASA R&D declines by 38.0% NASA SAT [science, aeronautics, and technology] Space R&D declines by 37.3% NASA Human Space Flight declines by 37.2% NASA Mission Support declines by 21.4% DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE: Total Commerce R&D declines by 50% NIST Advanced Technology Program declines by 100% NIST Construction declines by 0.9% NIST [intramural] Scientific and Technical Research and Services increases 1.0% ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jul 2 12:46:28 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18393; Sun, 2 Jul 95 12:46:27 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06599; 2 Jul 95 12:46 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27354; Sun, 2 Jul 95 09:45:33 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19820; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:44:19 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA08552; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:38:20 -0600 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:38:19 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #91 - NSF Authorization (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Note paragraph 4! We are trying to get clarification on who all would be covered under this policy change. jim Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 91: June 30, 1995 House Science Committee Marks Up NSF Reauthorization Bill It was approaching midnight on June 28 when the House Science Committee completed about 40 minutes of consideration of H.R. 1852, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act. Already weary from the long and sometimes difficult mark ups of the EPA, DOE, NOAA, space station, and NIST authorization bills, the committee went through this legislation at a more rapid pace. When they were finished, NSF funding authorization levels remained the same as those in the subcommittee bill (see FYI #83) although several policy and structural changes were made. The committee adopted by voice vote several changes in the original bill language that were offered by House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA). Among them was a requirement that NSF reduce its seven Assistant Directors by one. This is widely viewed as being aimed at the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate. An amendment offered by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) to give NSF more flexibility in its reorganization was defeated by voice vote. Also contained in the Walker package of changes was a requirement that the OSTP Director "prepare a report analyzing what steps would be needed to (1) reduce by 10 percent the proportion of Federal assistance to institutions of higher education that are allocated for indirect costs; and (2) reduce the variance among indirect cost rates of different institutions of higher education." The committee also agreed to language sponsored by Chairman Walker to reduce the attractiveness of earmarking. The NSF director is instructed to exclude from consideration for NSF awards "any person who received funds...after fiscal year 1995, from any Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process. Any exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section shall be effective for a period of 5 years after the person receives such Federal funds." Two amendments that would have directly or indirectly changed the authorization levels in the NSF bill, similar to those offered during the committee's consideration of earlier bills, were not offered. Under this legislation, total NSF funding is not to exceed $3.126 billion for FY 1996 and $3.1714 billion for FY 1997. Current year funding is $3.264 billion. The Clinton Administration requested $3.360 billion for fiscal year 1996. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) offered an amendment to change the name of NSF to the National Science and Engineering Foundation. This was rejected by a roll call vote of yes - 16, no - 22. Chairman Walker voted no; Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) did not vote. It is not known when this bill will go to the House floor. The House VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, which provides actual funding for NSF, is scheduled to mark up its bill shortly after Congress returns from its July 4 recess. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jul 2 12:47:50 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18398; Sun, 2 Jul 95 12:47:49 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06753; 2 Jul 95 12:47 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27359; Sun, 2 Jul 95 09:47:52 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19830; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:46:37 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA08558; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:40:38 -0600 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:40:37 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #92 - Space Station Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 92: June 30, 1995 House Science Committee Marks Up Space Station Authorization Bill "It tells NASA and the world that the space station is the highest priority in terms of funding." -- Rep. James Sensenbrenner One day before NASA's space shuttle performed its historic link-up in space with the Russian MIR, the House Science Committee passed legislation authorizing funding through completion of the international space station project. The bill, H.R. 1601, was debated by the committee on June 28, along with a series of other authorization bills. The purpose of the multi-year authorization, said Space Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), is to provide stable funding for the oft-redesigned project, allowing NASA to keep its commitments to contractors and to its international partners. The bill would authorize $13.141 billion for the station over the next seven years, with completion expected in 2002. Funding could not exceed $2.121 billion per year. While most committee members supported the station itself, many were concerned that it would cannibalize the remainder of NASA's activities. This caused a number of Democrats to oppose the multi-year legislation, fearing that NASA's science, aeronautics and technology programs would be forced to bear the brunt of budget cuts over the seven years. The Clinton Administration's plans call for NASA to take a cut of $5 billion from its expected budget profile over the next five years. The House budget resolution would require an even greater reduction. (Numbers for the House-Senate compromise resolution are not available yet). Former Science Committee Chairman George Brown (D-CA) argued that it was "neither wise nor prudent to remove the space station from annual review while other NASA programs are on the table." As he has done in previous years, station foe Tim Roemer (D-IN) offered an amendment to cancel the program. The station handily survived the vote (11-33) on what Sensenbrenner called a "recurring annual ritual." Then, as in the June 9 subcommittee mark-up (see FYI #77), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) offered an amendment to predicate funding of the space station on the assurance of adequate budgets for other space agency programs. The amendment would require that NASA receive at least a specified appropriation for each year, or that the NASA administrator certify "that a balanced space and aeronautics program has been maintained." If these conditions were not met, Congress would be notified, and could reconsider funding for the space station. Brown called the amendment "sine qua non for my support" of the station. However, full committee chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) charged that the amendment would hold "a popular program hostage" to get higher budget levels for NASA. He said Jackson Lee was "attempting to use broad-based support for the space station to drive the NASA budget," and added ruefully, "I wish it could be so." The Jackson Lee amendment failed, 11-30. The space station authorization bill was passed and sent on to the House floor, with Brown voting against it. No date has yet been set for consideration by the full House, but appropriators on the VA/HUD subcommittee are scheduled to draft their bill on July 10. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jul 2 12:46:28 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18393; Sun, 2 Jul 95 12:46:27 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06599; 2 Jul 95 12:46 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27354; Sun, 2 Jul 95 09:45:33 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19820; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:44:19 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA08552; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:38:20 -0600 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:38:19 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #91 - NSF Authorization (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Note paragraph 4! We are trying to get clarification on who all would be covered under this policy change. jim Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 91: June 30, 1995 House Science Committee Marks Up NSF Reauthorization Bill It was approaching midnight on June 28 when the House Science Committee completed about 40 minutes of consideration of H.R. 1852, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act. Already weary from the long and sometimes difficult mark ups of the EPA, DOE, NOAA, space station, and NIST authorization bills, the committee went through this legislation at a more rapid pace. When they were finished, NSF funding authorization levels remained the same as those in the subcommittee bill (see FYI #83) although several policy and structural changes were made. The committee adopted by voice vote several changes in the original bill language that were offered by House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA). Among them was a requirement that NSF reduce its seven Assistant Directors by one. This is widely viewed as being aimed at the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate. An amendment offered by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) to give NSF more flexibility in its reorganization was defeated by voice vote. Also contained in the Walker package of changes was a requirement that the OSTP Director "prepare a report analyzing what steps would be needed to (1) reduce by 10 percent the proportion of Federal assistance to institutions of higher education that are allocated for indirect costs; and (2) reduce the variance among indirect cost rates of different institutions of higher education." The committee also agreed to language sponsored by Chairman Walker to reduce the attractiveness of earmarking. The NSF director is instructed to exclude from consideration for NSF awards "any person who received funds...after fiscal year 1995, from any Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process. Any exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section shall be effective for a period of 5 years after the person receives such Federal funds." Two amendments that would have directly or indirectly changed the authorization levels in the NSF bill, similar to those offered during the committee's consideration of earlier bills, were not offered. Under this legislation, total NSF funding is not to exceed $3.126 billion for FY 1996 and $3.1714 billion for FY 1997. Current year funding is $3.264 billion. The Clinton Administration requested $3.360 billion for fiscal year 1996. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) offered an amendment to change the name of NSF to the National Science and Engineering Foundation. This was rejected by a roll call vote of yes - 16, no - 22. Chairman Walker voted no; Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) did not vote. It is not known when this bill will go to the House floor. The House VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, which provides actual funding for NSF, is scheduled to mark up its bill shortly after Congress returns from its July 4 recess. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jul 2 12:47:50 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18398; Sun, 2 Jul 95 12:47:49 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06753; 2 Jul 95 12:47 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27359; Sun, 2 Jul 95 09:47:52 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19830; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:46:37 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA08558; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:40:38 -0600 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:40:37 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #92 - Space Station Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 92: June 30, 1995 House Science Committee Marks Up Space Station Authorization Bill "It tells NASA and the world that the space station is the highest priority in terms of funding." -- Rep. James Sensenbrenner One day before NASA's space shuttle performed its historic link-up in space with the Russian MIR, the House Science Committee passed legislation authorizing funding through completion of the international space station project. The bill, H.R. 1601, was debated by the committee on June 28, along with a series of other authorization bills. The purpose of the multi-year authorization, said Space Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), is to provide stable funding for the oft-redesigned project, allowing NASA to keep its commitments to contractors and to its international partners. The bill would authorize $13.141 billion for the station over the next seven years, with completion expected in 2002. Funding could not exceed $2.121 billion per year. While most committee members supported the station itself, many were concerned that it would cannibalize the remainder of NASA's activities. This caused a number of Democrats to oppose the multi-year legislation, fearing that NASA's science, aeronautics and technology programs would be forced to bear the brunt of budget cuts over the seven years. The Clinton Administration's plans call for NASA to take a cut of $5 billion from its expected budget profile over the next five years. The House budget resolution would require an even greater reduction. (Numbers for the House-Senate compromise resolution are not available yet). Former Science Committee Chairman George Brown (D-CA) argued that it was "neither wise nor prudent to remove the space station from annual review while other NASA programs are on the table." As he has done in previous years, station foe Tim Roemer (D-IN) offered an amendment to cancel the program. The station handily survived the vote (11-33) on what Sensenbrenner called a "recurring annual ritual." Then, as in the June 9 subcommittee mark-up (see FYI #77), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) offered an amendment to predicate funding of the space station on the assurance of adequate budgets for other space agency programs. The amendment would require that NASA receive at least a specified appropriation for each year, or that the NASA administrator certify "that a balanced space and aeronautics program has been maintained." If these conditions were not met, Congress would be notified, and could reconsider funding for the space station. Brown called the amendment "sine qua non for my support" of the station. However, full committee chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) charged that the amendment would hold "a popular program hostage" to get higher budget levels for NASA. He said Jackson Lee was "attempting to use broad-based support for the space station to drive the NASA budget," and added ruefully, "I wish it could be so." The Jackson Lee amendment failed, 11-30. The space station authorization bill was passed and sent on to the House floor, with Brown voting against it. No date has yet been set for consideration by the full House, but appropriators on the VA/HUD subcommittee are scheduled to draft their bill on July 10. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Jul 5 11:13:46 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25029; Wed, 5 Jul 95 11:13:45 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03073; 5 Jul 95 11:13 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19655; Wed, 5 Jul 95 08:11:34 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA07513; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 09:10:20 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA09979; Wed, 5 Jul 1995 09:04:19 -0600 Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 09:04:18 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: jhobbie's words on OMB visit to VCR (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI Thought everyone would be interested in the discussion John Hobbie had with someone from OMB regarding LTER. jim gosz >From jhobbie I talked with Sarah Horrigan at the ASLO meeting last week. She said that the NSF people scheduled the trip to VCR and that that particular date was ALWAYS out for her. Wonderful for you. I brought up the idea of the summary of site leverage, number of P.I.'s, etc. that you have been working on. It did not strike a spark but maybe that was my presentation. What did strike a spark was the great untold stories of LTER that need to be publicized. When pressed, she could only come up with the Hanta virus story. So, I am left with the impression that she is in favor of LTER as a good way to operate but thinks we are lacking in the expertise of selling. She also related several horror stories about the interaction of several arrogant scientists with congressional staff (not LTER scientists). It made the point, again, that some briefing and testing of scientists and of testimony must be carried out (by NSF?) or these few idiots could destroy whole programs. Regards, John Hobbie From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Jul 6 22:24:32 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02149; Thu, 6 Jul 95 22:24:31 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23946; 6 Jul 95 22:24 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02891; Thu, 6 Jul 95 19:24:10 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA27465; Thu, 6 Jul 1995 20:22:56 -0600 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 20:22:55 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #93 - Recent Developments (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 93: July 6, 1995 Recent Developments and Updates DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY APPROPRIATIONS BILL: Upon its return next week, the full House will consider H.R. 1905, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for FY 1996. Numerous amendments are expected. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) will reportedly offer an amendment to make significant funding cuts in the general science and energy supply R&D portions of this bill. There appears to be little support for his amendment. FINAL BUDGET RESOLUTION: FYI #90 contained projections on future science and technology spending prepared by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. As noted, these figures were based on the House version of the budget resolution. The AAAS has updated their projections to reflect additional language in the final budget resolution. The following changes were made in the figures shown in FYI #90. In each case, the reduction is less than in the House version (DOE, NIST, and two NSF projections remain unchanged.) National Science Foundation: Total NSF R&D declines by 18.1% Research and Related Activities declines by 7.1% Education and Human Resources declines by 17.6% NASA: Total NASA R&D declines by 35.9% NASA SAT [science, aeronautics, and technology] Space R&D declines by 35.2% NASA Human Space Flight declines by 35.1% NASA Mission Support declines by 18.8% RESCISSIONS BILL: The objections of two senators to H.R. 1944, a $16.3 billion rescissions bill to reduce current year spending, blocked this legislation's final passage. With the time remaining in this fiscal year rapidly shrinking, the outlook for this bill is increasingly pessimistic. Failure to pass this bill will mean that the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies appropriations subcommittees will have to make large reductions in the amount of money they have available for FY 1996 funding for agencies under their jurisdiction, such as NSF and NASA. FORMER NSF DIRECTOR WALTER MASSEY has been appointed president of Morehouse College in Atlanta. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jul 7 23:20:11 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05660; Fri, 7 Jul 95 23:20:10 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01433; 7 Jul 95 23:20 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10021; Fri, 7 Jul 95 20:19:19 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08830; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 21:18:05 -0600 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 21:18:04 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #95 - Gibbons Address (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 95: July 7, 1995 OSTP Director Gibbons on Role of Scientists in Policy Formulation At a June 26 AAAS Forum, John Gibbons, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, addressed the role which scientists should play in policy formulation. A portion of his remarks on this subject, and the relationship between basic and applied research, follow: "The Congress assumes that basic research can be neatly separated from applied research and development. That's just plain wrong. In today's society, where science and technology so thoroughly permeate our lives, these sharp distinctions can no longer be made.... "This month's Physics Today provides an elegant example. In an effort to compensate for the flaw in the Hubble Telescope's primary mirror, workers at the Space Telescope Science Institute developed a large collection of image-processing software. The software acts to help spot faint stars in blurry images. It turns out that finding that faint star is a lot like finding microcalcifications -- faint spots in a blurry mammogram image that can signal breast cancer...." "How do we make sure that these kinds of breakthroughs keep happening, and that they bear fruit across the R&D spectrum and for all Americans?" "...I want to emphasize that the primary responsibility for making the case to Congress and the American people belongs to the science and technology community. We are the ones who are the most familiar with both the potential and the limitations of science and technology. As C.P. Snow once wrote, `Scientists have the future in their bones.' It is our obligation to convey that sense of the future to others. "If we are to reverse the substantial momentum that lies behind proposed cuts in science and technology, we need to engage many different communities: the R&D community, the industrial community, the education community -- ultimately the entire American populace, because they are the ones who will suffer the most from these changes. "But none of us will get a full meal if we continue to fight each other for table scraps. Rather, we need to present the best case for our future as a nation -- not our future as a high-energy physicist, or a biosystematist, or an immunologist. And we have to do this in the most effective manner we can. We need to capture the nation's attention. If we can do that, the facts will speak for themselves...." "For all the differences between the Administration and Congress, there are many convictions we share. For both, science is a most powerful agent for change in our society. In the end, that is why we must continue to support research, even as we move to balance the budget. Science and technology will not only enable us to stop digging deeper into the hole of deficit spending; they will enable us to climb out of the hole we have dug." ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jul 7 23:20:44 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05669; Fri, 7 Jul 95 23:20:43 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01509; 7 Jul 95 23:20 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10018; Fri, 7 Jul 95 20:18:15 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08817; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 21:17:01 -0600 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 21:17:00 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #96 - Lane Address (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 96: July 7, 1995 NSF Director Lane: "Understanding the Issues and Entering the Fray" Addressing a June 26 AAAS Forum, NSF Director Neal Lane spoke on the need for scientists to become a part of the policy formulation process. Selected portions of his address follow: "...unique and valuable components of the [R&D] enterprise are being targeted for elimination, often by those with no experience in how the enterprise as a whole functions. Currently, cutbacks in R&D are occurring simultaneously in industry, universities, government labs, and extramural programs." "At this crucial moment, when many segments of the R&D system are embattled by threats of dramatic reduction or outright elimination, we must be careful not to give in to our individual instincts to save ourselves at the cost of others. There is strong potential at such times to fall prey to petty fratricidal divisions -- between disciplines, among organizations, and separating agencies -- the frantic behavior of circling the wagons and shooting inward." "...A strong R&D enterprise does not have a sturdy technology leg and a weak science leg, or vice versa. It does not support the physical sciences to the exclusion of the social sciences, or the reverse. Its goal should not be only Nobel prizes but rather social and economic benefit as well as first class achievement. And, the latter requires a strong balanced portfolio of science, engineering, and technology." Lane also addressed the relationship between scientists and non-scientists: "For a variety of reasons, many having to do with a Cold-War research culture, science and scientists have fallen into the habit of separateness...." "This separation, which reflects both isolation and autonomy, nullifies a great many contributions that scientists and engineers can make to our larger societal goals. It also appears to exonerate us from many of the responsibilities we should carry in the society. "Many of you, like me, are employed directly by the taxpayers as public servants. Many others here are recipients of the public's largesse through your taxpayer-funded research, generous public support of your explorations and inquiries into the unknown. With this privilege, and it is a privilege, comes the responsibility to explain to the American public the contributions that science and technology make in meeting the goals of the nation and its citizenry. It is only then that we can expect society to truly understand and value those contributions. It is only then that the public's representatives in the Congress will be instructed to preserve this national capability for finding solutions to many of society's problems. ...let us not be arrogant about our contribution but articulate about that contribution." Returning to the theme of separateness, Lane continued: "NASA Administrator Dan Goldin described it quite graphically a few weeks ago at a National Research Council conference. He said, `We [the R&D community] are the enemy, because we understand its [R&D's] importance but we're so busy protecting what we've got that we're not taking the time to explain it to America.... The scientific community had darn well better learn to communicate with America.'" Lane concluded, "...there will be reduced funding for federal R&D programs because we have entered a stage of pervasive reductions, and R&D will not be exempted. We as a community can either participate in and help guide this process with informed judgement and reasoned advice or we can abdicate our responsibilities, bury our heads in the sand, and let others less knowledgeable of the system make those decisions. "Our choice to be participants in the process will be the best guarantee for preserving the capability of R&D excellence in the nation while helping lawmakers address the nature and form of inevitable reductions." "What we hope to protect and preserve is not just for our parochial interests but for the national interest now and in the future." ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Jul 11 20:21:36 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16410; Tue, 11 Jul 95 20:21:35 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09867; 11 Jul 95 20:21 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00878; Tue, 11 Jul 95 17:18:27 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13063; Tue, 11 Jul 1995 18:17:14 -0600 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 18:17:13 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #97 - VA/HUD Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 97: July 11, 1995 House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Marks Up Bill The House VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by Jerry Lewis (R-CA), on July 10 marked up its version of the FY 1996 appropriations bill funding NSF and NASA, among other agencies. While the Department of Housing and Urban Development and EPA reportedly received the largest cuts, few programs remained unscathed. Both NSF and NASA would be subject to some reductions. According to reports, NSF would receive a total of $3.16 billion for FY 1996, compared to a request of $3.36 billion. NSF's current-year budget is $3.26 billion. This reduction of $200 million from the request would be taken entirely from the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) Account. Under the bill, R&RA would receive $2.25 billion. (Current R&RA funding is $2.28 billion; the FY96 request is $2.45 billion.) NSF's other accounts would all receive their full FY 1996 requests, as shown below (amounts are in millions): FY95 FY96 VA/HUD Funding Request Bill Total NSF $3,263 3,360 3,160 R&RA 2,280 2,454 2,254 Education/Hum Resources 606 599 599 Acad. Res. Infrastructure 118 100 100 Major Res. Equipment 126 70 70 Salaries/Expenses 124 127 127 Relocation 5 5 5 Inspector General 4 5 5 NASA would reportedly receive about $13.54 billion, a reduction of $720 million from the FY 1996 request of $14.26 billion. Current-year NASA funding is $14.46 billion. In its bill, the subcommittee provided the requested amounts for the following programs: the space shuttle (request: $3,232 million), the space station (request: $1,833 million plus additional funding within life and microgravity sciences), the reusable launch vehicle (request: $159 million), and the Earth Observing System (request: $591 million). However, the bill would cancel the Cassini mission to Saturn (request: $192 million), and delay funding for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) and the Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF). The subcommittee also recommended closure of three NASA centers by the beginning of fiscal year 1998: Goddard Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, and Langley Research Center. It proposed transferring Goddard's functions to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. The VA/HUD appropriations bill is currently scheduled to be taken up by the full House Appropriations Committee on July 18. It is expected to move to the House floor shortly after the committee mark-up. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jul 14 09:22:41 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25477; Fri, 14 Jul 95 09:22:40 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19019; 14 Jul 95 9:22 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01504; Fri, 14 Jul 95 06:18:52 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA16127; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 07:17:39 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA04500; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 07:11:35 -0600 Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 07:11:34 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #99 - NASA Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 99: July 13, 1995 Crucial Time for NASA Science Programs As described in FYI #97, early reports state that the House VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, in marking up its FY 1996 funding bill, made these recommendations for major NASA science programs: termination of the Cassini mission to Saturn (FY96 request: $191.5 million); at least a delay in funding SIRTF (FY96 request: $15.0 million) and SOFIA (FY96 request: $48.7 million); and, by some accounts, termination of Gravity Probe B, whose continuation NASA is studying. The subcommittee also recommended the closure of three NASA centers, Goddard, Langley, and Marshall, by FY 1998. (See FYI #3 for the House subcommittee roster.) This action represents only the first step in the appropriations process for NASA, but now is the time to take action to affect the rest of the process. One opportunity to turn the fate of the programs around will come on the House floor (no date has yet been scheduled). For instance, David Obey (D-WI), the House Appropriations Committee's ranking minority member, has announced that he will offer an amendment to terminate space station funding and make those funds available for other programs under VA/HUD's jurisdiction, including other NASA activities. Other House members are likely to protest the subcommittee's actions. House Science Committee chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) has released the following statement on the bill: "While I am pleased that the subcommittee recognizes the need for continued support of a manned space program by fully funding the space station and the reusable launch vehicle program, I am concerned that the subcommittee has chosen to eliminate some of the highest priority space science missions.... NASA's core basic research, which includes planetary exploration and physics and astronomy, should be the first area to be preserved." Walker added, "The proposal to close three NASA centers is premature and is not something which I can support at this time. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has outlined a restructuring plan which should be considered before we begin to dismantle the operational centers. I am hopeful that an upcoming Science Committee markup of the NASA budget will be able to offer some clear alternatives to the appropriators before VA/HUD goes to the House floor." In addition, House Science ranking member George Brown (D-CA), has argued forcefully for the preservation of NASA's science missions. According to reports, the House subcommittee bill suggests moving Goddard's functions to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The Foster Task Force review of NASA's laboratories, released earlier this year (see FYI #51), found that "astrophysics, space physics, and fundamental earth science research should continue to be conducted at both JPL and GSFC because those program elements are complementary and not redundant." The bill would reportedly also shift Langley's functions to Lewis and Ames Research Centers, and spread out Marshall's programs among Lewis, Stennis, Johnson, and Kennedy centers. Not only is House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis's (R-CA) district near JPL, but two subcommittee members are from Texas, where Johnston Space Flight Center is located, and three are from Ohio, the home of Lewis Research Center. There are no subcommittee members from Maryland, Virginia, or Alabama, the locations of Goddard, Langley, and Marshall, respectively. The Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee will have an opportunity to provide its own recommendations when it takes up the bill. Members of the Senate subcommittee include ranking Democrat Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who is an avid supporter of NASA and especially Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in her state, and Richard Shelby (R-AL), whose state houses Marshall Space Flight Center. Mikulski has been quoted by the Washington Post as saying, "This is real, and the battle has been joined.... We'll try to work it out, and if we can't, we'll duke it out." While she and Shelby are certain to fight for their centers, it is less certain how much they will stand up for the science programs. To get the Senate to restore money for any programs terminated by the House will require considerable support from the public. (See FYI #31 for the Senate subcommittee roster.) President Clinton has already announced his intention to veto appropriations bills that go too far in making cuts he disagrees with, but he has other concerns in the VA/HUD bill. In addition to reducing NASA and NSF funding, it drastically cuts housing programs and terminates his National Service Program. An added factor for the VA/HUD bill revolves around Congress's attempt to pass a rescissions bill for FY 1995 funding (see FYIs #34, 93). If that bill, which was taken into account in the budget-reduction plans, is not passed, more will likely be cut from the FY 1996 appropriations allocations to remain on a five-year path to a balanced budget. The VA/HUD allocation, already 12 percent less than last year's, is a likely target for further reductions. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin reacted to proposed R&D budget cuts, and to the subcommittee bill on Tuesday at the PCAST meeting. He spoke at length about the impact which continual downsizing has had on the NASA workforce, saying that "people are at their limits...NASA is ready to explode." He went on to characterize new efforts to reduce the NASA work force as "road kill," where the objective seems to be cutting for the sake of cutting. "I've had it," he said. Speaking specifically of the subcommittee's reduction in NASA funding for FY 1996 - $720 million less than the administration request - Goldin said, "I am not prepared to cut the budget another nickel." ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Jul 15 13:49:02 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA29275; Sat, 15 Jul 95 13:49:00 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12160; 15 Jul 95 13:48 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27909; Sat, 15 Jul 95 10:48:28 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26824; Sat, 15 Jul 1995 11:47:16 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00769; Sat, 15 Jul 1995 11:41:12 -0600 Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 11:41:11 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #100 - DOE Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 100: July 14, 1995 DOE Appropriations Bill Passes House Floor On July 12, the House voted to pass H.R. 1905, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for FY 1996. This bill provides funding for the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and other programs. In the portion of the bill relating to DOE, very few changes were made on the House floor to the version passed by the House Appropriations Committee on June 20. The Appropriations Committee provided a total of $14.76 billion for DOE, 11.3 percent less than the request of $16.63 billion, and 6.0 percent less than current FY 1995 funding of $15.70 billion. As reported in FYIs #85 and 86, the committee report makes the following recommendations (unchanged by the House floor vote): FY1995 FY1996 House Approp. Request Bill Fusion $368.4 (millions) 366.1 229.1 Basic Energy Sciences 733.9 811.5 792.7 Materials Sciences 272.3 348.3 368.4 High Energy Physics 642.1 685.6 677.0 Nuclear Physics 331.5 321.1 304.5 Within High Energy Physics, the bill provides $6 million to start preparations for working with the Europeans on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Three amendments were passed on the House floor that affect DOE science funding. Rep. Mike Ward (D-KY) offered an amendment to strike committee report language that earmarked $1.0 million within DOE's Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities for "research on the potential energy applications of sonoluminescence." The amendment passed 276-141, deleting the earmark for sonoluminescence. Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI) succeeded in passing two amendments: one that attempts to terminate the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor program, and one to restore $45 million for the Solar Technology Transfer program. Among amendments that were rejected, Rep. Harold Volkmer (D-MO) offered one to eliminate $8.0 million designated for conceptual design of the spallation neutron source, to be built at Oak Ridge as a less-expensive replacement for the Advanced Neutron Source. This amendment failed, 148-275. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) was expected to offer an amendment cutting funding for DOE general science and energy research. However, Andrews was reportedly absent and did not offer the amendment. The Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, John Myers (R-IN), in describing the bill on the House floor, said: "The bill effects serious reductions throughout the Department of Energy. Unneeded bureaucracy is cut from the budget, while essential and necessary activities of the Federal Government are preserved. General science and research activities are preserved within funding constraints, while applied research and commercialization activities- especially those for which private industry investment is more appropriate- are eliminated or dramatically reduced.... The appropriation for general science is $991 million, a $7 million increase over last year's level." House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) supported the bill, stating, "The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has, to the extent possible within his subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, tracked the energy research and development priorities of the Committee on Science as outlined in the authorization bills.... This is a bill that does a lot in terms of basic energy sciences and in high energy and nuclear physics science. What we have here is a commitment to the idea that we ought to be doing basic research in this country, that there is an underlying need to develop those new knowledge bases that this country will depend upon in years ahead." This bill will now abe considered by the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Jul 17 18:05:56 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05551; Mon, 17 Jul 95 18:05:55 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22129; 17 Jul 95 18:05 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00740; Mon, 17 Jul 95 15:03:21 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA17766; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 16:02:07 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01224; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 15:56:01 -0600 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 15:56:00 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: tallison@nsf.gov Subject: NSF at ESA meeting (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NSF Information Session 12:15-1:15 July 31 Snowbird Golden Cliff Room Representatives from the Division of Environmental Biology, National Science Foundation will discuss NSF's current budget situation and will provide information on proposal processing and preparation useful to new investigators. Ample time will be allowed for questions and information on current grant programs will be available. All those attending the ESA meeting are encouraged to come this session. From jhobbie@lupine.mbl.edu Tue Jul 18 14:16:37 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08656; Tue, 18 Jul 95 14:16:36 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24424; 18 Jul 95 14:16 EDT Received: from hoh.mbl.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14259; Tue, 18 Jul 95 11:13:17 PDT Received: from lupine.mbl.edu (LUPINE.MBL.EDU [128.128.173.1]) by hoh.mbl.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA13866 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 14:12:41 -0400 Received: from eco17 (ECO17.MBL.EDU) by lupine.mbl.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03345; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 14:12:53 +0500 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 14:12:02 -0600 (EDT) From: John Hobbie To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: sdonovan@lupine.mbl.edu Subject: Arctic LTER site visit X-Sender: jhobbie@lupine.mbl.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3029 Status: OR Dear LTER P.I.'s: Despite the worst mosquito year in recorded history, the review team visited Toolik Lake and saw the arctic sights. It looked like a convention of bee keepers as all had headnets and gloves on. John Porter was especially attractive, at least to mosquitoes, and one single slap on his back yielded 206 corpses. The new record is 280. The site review team for the Arctic LTER said many complimentary things about the quality of science, ideas, and personnel. They produced a multi- page report which many of the LTER P.I.'s might find interesting, especially those who have site reviews or renewals coming up. I include only their recommendations. If you want the complete document, please email Sue Donovan (sdonovan@lupine.mbl.edu). Regards, John Hobbie Report of Review Team-Arctic LTER 5-9 July, 1995 Recommendations: 1. The site needs to continue to strengthen interlinkage components of its research program. Future goals of strengthening hydrological investigations as well as recently implemented studies on water and solute transport through terrestrial to aquatic regions are positive steps in this direction. 2. Microbial research activities need to be strengthened. Special attention should be given to developing a robust organizational framework that incorporates DOM/microbial interactions and provides insights into how this component of their conceptual framework functions across sites. 3. The PIs expressed a desire to increase regionalization studies. The review committee recognizes that this desire is partially spawned by the augmentation proposal of 1994 that was not funded. The committee concurs with the current strategy of the PIs to use modeling for regionalization rather than adding more field sample sites, which should avoid diminishing critical research areas in the core program. With regard to this issue, the committee recommends careful consideration of project priorities by the PIs in the context of LTER goals. 4. With respect to the LTER network goal of publishing synthesis volumes on each site's research, the committee recommends that the Arctic LTER develop plans for allocating resources for participation in this endeavor. 5. The Committee recommends that the Executive Committee of the Arctic site be expanded to include two other PIs on a rotational basis. 6. With regard to data management, the committee recommends (a) designation of a Program Information Manager to oversee DM functions and coordinate project data managers; (b) expansion of the available data sets on the Arctic Lter WWW Homepage; and (c) greater LTER Network participation by Arctic LTER DM personnel. 7. The Committee recommends establishment of an on-site reference collection of voucher specimens for the flora and fauna of the region. Additional specimens should be collected and curated in a recognized museum facility (University of Alaska, Fairbanks, or elsewhere). Species lists should be included as a database on the Arctic LTER WWW Homepage. From tims@culter.colorado.edu Tue Jul 18 18:11:53 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09434; Tue, 18 Jul 95 18:11:52 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26782; 18 Jul 95 18:11 EDT Received: from culter.colorado.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17178; Tue, 18 Jul 95 15:07:51 PDT Received: (from tims@localhost) by culter.colorado.edu (8.6.12/8.6.11/Unixops/Hesiod/(SDM)) id QAA12909 for pi@lternet.edu; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:06:38 -0600 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:06:38 -0600 From: Tim Seastedt Message-Id: <199507182206.QAA12909@culter.colorado.edu> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: site review Status: OR To follow John's lead, below are the recommendations from our NSF site review. Like the arctic site, the alpine fared pretty well, with Rick Ingersoll's information management system scoring the most kudos. While we lacked the arctic feeding frenzy/bloodbath, a dramatic moment occurred when a lady in a Corvette attempted to run down me, three NSF program officers and our four review team members. However, we were in a Chevy Suburban at the time, and a Vette hitting a Burban was like an egg hitting a tank. No one was hurt...not even the driver of the Vette. The review team conducted a private interview session with our graduate students. The student feedback is included below. Their response was a surprise to me. I would have thought that summer stipends or beverage provided by advisors would have scored higher. cheers, trs "The graduate students were unanimous in their appreciation for the effort that the site is putting into data management and all expressed the utility of access to previously collected data as a way to quickly get up to speed on the background data resources for their particular area of interest. The availability of on-line data resources is likely to continue to increase in importance. A. Short-term - suggestions to be considered for implementation in the short term 1. The most important threat to the long-term viability of this LTER project is the lack of a clear, overarching conceptual framework for the research. An integrative modeling effort is greatly encouraged. 2. More frequent meetings of the P.I.'s to develop research directions and priorities (perhaps 3 to 4 times per year). 3. Reconsider the intensity and nature of the vegetation sampling that should be pursued in the next few years with a goal making these more cost effective. 4. Develop appropriate approaches to assess diatomic N and ammonia fluxes and N percolation losses. 5. The group should consider boardwalks in sensitive areas of the Saddle area, especially near the snow fence experiment. B. Long-term - suggestions for improving the longer term focus and general research effort. 1. Trophic-level interaction studies are encouraged, e.g., vertebrate and invertebrate studies to examine the effect of disturbance on community structure and processes. 2. The project should consider incorporating an organismal perspective in belowground studies. 3. The group should consider pursuing outside sources of funding to undertake selected aquatic studies that examine the effects of terrestrial processes on aquatic systems in the Niwot LTER. From bph@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Wed Jul 19 15:35:00 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12997; Wed, 19 Jul 95 15:34:59 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29452; 19 Jul 95 15:34 EDT Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA29207; Wed, 19 Jul 95 12:31:53 PDT Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28242; 19 Jul 95 15:30 EDT Received: from [128.143.43.88] (bootp-43-88.bootp.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12951; Wed, 19 Jul 95 15:30:36 EDT Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 15:30:35 EDT Message-Id: <9507191930.AA12951@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: pub@lternet.edu, pi@lternet.edu From: Bruce Hayden Subject: more work for you Status: OR Based on information collected for CC meetings it is my understanding that the following accomplishments and plans for site synthesis volumes by the sites. AND volume planned ARC BNZ CDR CPR volume inpreparation CWT one vol published; considering a second HBR one vol published HFR volume planned JRN KBS KNZ compositiion phase nearly complete LUQ volume planned MCM working on a AGU volume NTL volume planned NWT volume planned PAL working on an AGU volume SEV VCR Plans; Outline Jan 96; editor available Sept.96; ms due june 97 The publishers at the LTER SNOWBIRD meeting will want to know, for each site, at what stage in the process is the volume planned. For example if three sites had manuscripts in any one year then we could rotate all sites in 6 years. If there are two site volumes per year than it would take 9 years to get through each site. Plese update your status re the table above. Indicate where your site is in the action stream of publsihing a site synthesis volume. As a key to your thinking remember that mid-term NSF site visits often ask about synthesis publicatiion status!!!! VCR plans are so conditioned and we think we are just about ready! If you have no plans at this stage please indicate so, I will use the euphemism "preplanning stage" to indicate that site has not yet come to a decision. Please send me (for use at SNOWBIRD) a terse statement of your site's plans. If your site is considering other publication efforts please advise so that we can communicate this as well. VIRGINIA COAST RESERVE LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM SEE: http://atlantic.evsc.virginia.edu :----------------+--------------------------------+---------------------: |Bruce P. Hayden | Dept. Environmental Sciences | bphvirginia.edu | |(804) 924-0545 | Clark Hall, Univ. of Virginia | bph@lternet.edu | |(804) 924-7761 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 | (804) 982-2137(fax)| :----------------+--------------------------------+---------------------: From vancleve@gis.lter.alaska.edu.lter.alaska.edu Wed Jul 19 15:46:00 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13041; Wed, 19 Jul 95 15:45:58 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03043; 19 Jul 95 15:45 EDT Received: from gis.lter.alaska.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA29367; Wed, 19 Jul 95 12:39:32 PDT Received: from aspen.lter.alaska.edu by gis.lter.alaska.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19367; Wed, 19 Jul 95 11:36:12 AKD From: "vancleve@gis.lter.alaska.edu" To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: RE: Site Review Report Reply-To: vancleve@gis.lter.alaska.edu Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 19:37:22 GMT Message-Id: <9507191937.1646FC@aspen.lter.alaska.edu> X-Mailer: SelectMAIL 1.0 Status: OR Dear LTER PIs, Enclosed is a summary of recommendations from our site review for BNZ that took place July 10 to 12. It is a great idea to share results of these reviews...even with bugs being less of a factor than getting people around on the Tanana River. It was a good review with many positive comments on our activities and a number of good suggestions that will help in preparation of the renewal proposal in 1997-98. We have the details if anyone is interested. We have the opportunity to respond to the site review team's comments and are preparing that at this time. Cheers, Keith Van Cleve Recommendations. 1. The proposed organizational structure of 3 co-P.I.'s (Yarie, Oswood, and Viereck's successor) may create unnecessary problems in leadership and scientific vision. As such, the panel felt that this was a risky organizational model. The recruitment of a senior ecologist (capable of assuming the role of lead P.I.) to replace Van Cleve and/or Viereck, was viewed by the panel as highly desirable. 2. The budget allocation practice of dividing the grant funds into roughly equal shares and distributing these amounts to each co-P.I. needs to be changed. Different research components of the overall program require varying amounts of support, and productive scientists in the project may need additional funds to fuel expanding and fruitful sub-projects. The importance of each sub-project to the main goal of the BNZ LTER should determine the degree of support, not the fractional result of the number of co-P.I.'s. 3. The panel found favor with the BNZ LTER proposals to regionalize their results and apply their successional models to other landscape components. The development of a spatially-explicit GIS-based model to the boreal forest is a logical extension of the LTER work. The panel concurred with the LTER's efforts to synthesize their results to date, and to increase the research on land-water interactions. 4. Several additional co-P.I.'s will prove essential to the continued development of the BNZ LTER Program. These include (in order of importance) an hydrologist, a forest entomologist, and a modeler in fire ecology. Note that these positions are in addition to the recruitment of a senior-level ecologist in the P.I. role, although the senior ecologist may be able to cover one of theses subject areas. 5. The number of women and ethnic minorities listed as co-P.I.'s was zero. Increased efforts to recruit women and minorities into the program should be undertaken. In addition, a concerted effort to include representatives from the native Alaskan groups in the research program would prove especially beneficial, given their inherent role in the resource use plans for the ecosystems of Alaska. 6. The current dissemination of LTER data to land managers (foresters, wildlife managers) in the form of "grey" literature research reports was viewed as positive, and the LTER group was encouraged to continue and expand this practice. However, these reports should follow publication of the data in high-quality, refereed scientific journals. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Jul 19 18:03:04 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13676; Wed, 19 Jul 95 18:03:03 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa13538; 19 Jul 95 18:03 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01037; Wed, 19 Jul 95 14:59:06 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA15840; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 15:57:54 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01657; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 15:51:47 -0600 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 15:51:46 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #101 - NSF Budget (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 101: July 17, 1995 National Science Foundation Funding Advances Another Step Yesterday the full House Appropriations Committee approved the FY 1996 budget numbers for the National Science Foundation that were recommended by the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. Under this bill, as yet unnumbered, the foundation budget would decline from current year funding of $3,263 million to $3,160 million for FY 1996. Research and Related Activities funding declines $200 million as compared to the administration request, with all other NSF accounts funded as requested. See FYI #97 for additional budget figures. Accompanying all legislation is a committee report. These reports contain language providing an explanation of the committee's actions, as well as recommendations. While not having the force of law, committee report language can exert a strong influence over a department or agency. The report language pertaining to NSF contains no sweeping policy recommendations. Pertinent sections are below: RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES: "The Committee recommends a total of $2,254,000,000 for Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 1996, a reduction of $200,000,000 from the budget request. The reduction recommended by the Committee is taken without prejudice and is to be allocated by the Foundation in accordance with internal procedures, subject to approval by the [appropriations] Committee." In other words, the NSF shall determine where the $200 million reduction is to be taken, with the committee's approval. MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT: "This account provides funding for the construction of major research facilities that provide unique capabilities at the cutting edge of science and engineering. "The Committee recommends a total of $70,000,000 for the major research equipment account for fiscal year 1996. This level reflects the total amount requested in the President's budget for construction of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO)." ACADEMIC RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE: "This program is a consolidation of academic research facility modernization and support of academic research instrumentation. "The Committee recommends the budget request of $100,000,000 for this activity in fiscal year 1996." EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES: "The Foundation's Education and Human Resources activities are designed to encourage the entrance of talented students into science and technology careers, to improve the undergraduate science and engineering education environment, to assist in providing all precollege students with a level of education in mathematics, science, and technology that reflects the needs of the nation and is the highest quality attained anywhere in the world, and extend greater research opportunities to underrepresented segments of the scientific and engineering communities. "For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has provided the President's request of $599,000,000. This level is $6,974,000 below the fiscal year 1995 appropriation. Given the resource constraints facing the Foundation, the Committee believes that the Foundation support for math and science education should be provided strictly on the basis of merit to institutions of higher education, independent museums, professional societies and associations, state and local educational entities, and other similar eligible organizations that are primarily associated with educational activities." Under a separate section entitled, "Education System Reform," the report states: "The Committee strongly supports the Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) and commends the Foundation for the significant progress made in the first nine awards. The Committee urges the Foundation to make all reasonable efforts to fully fund these awards and the recent second seven awards at the agreed level of $3,000,000 per year. Further, beyond the USI program, the Committee recognizes the significant accomplishments of the Alliance for Minority Participation in Science and the Advanced Technology Education programs. The Committee urges the Foundation to give the highest priority attention to these two very important activities." EPSCoR: "The Committee is pleased with the efforts which the Foundation has made to ensure that the Experimental program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is part of the broader systemic reform initiatives pursued in recent years. These efforts have formed a solid base for education and human resource development activities in many of the EPSCoR states. The same success has not, however, occurred with respect to the research directorates. The committee believes that new efforts are needed to mainstream EPSCoR researchers and research clusters into research directorate activities, and to include representatives from EPSCoR states on panels, advisory committees, and other bodies. EPSCoR is, after all, a research-based program and its ultimate measure of success must be determined by the extent to which its participants can move into the mainstream of research programs and research decision-making. The Committee understands that it takes time to become competitive, but it also believes that the Foundation needs to place a renewed emphasis on such mainstreaming. The Committee directs the Foundation to report by December 1, 1995, on how increased interaction can be achieved between the research directorates and the EPSCoR states and how better representation on appropriate committees can be achieved." The next step for this bill is for it considered by the full House within the next two weeks. ##END########## From meyer@sparc.ecology.uga.edu Thu Jul 20 11:45:18 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16539; Thu, 20 Jul 95 11:45:16 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17977; 20 Jul 95 11:45 EDT Received: from dns1.uga.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16085; Thu, 20 Jul 95 08:41:05 PDT Received: from sparc.ecology.uga.edu (sparc.ecology.uga.edu [128.192.18.3]) by dns1.uga.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with ESMTP id LAA06256 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:39:54 -0400 Received: from [128.192.10.101] ([128.192.10.101]) by sparc.ecology.uga.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id LAA01830 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:51:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:51:08 -0400 Message-Id: <199507201551.LAA01830@sparc.ecology.uga.edu> From: Judy Meyer To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Site Reviews Status: OR I just wanted to thank John, Tim and Keith for sharing their site review comments with the rest of the PIs in the network. We have come a long way; this is strong indication of our commitment to functioning as a network. And congratulations to all three sites for getting good reviews! Judy ******************************************** * * * Judy L. Meyer * * Institute of Ecology * * University of Georgia * * Athens GA 30602-2602 * * Phone (706) 542 - 3363 * * FAX (706) 542 - 3344 * * Email meyer@sparc.ecology.uga.edu * * * ******************************************** From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Mon Jul 24 11:15:26 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27387; Mon, 24 Jul 95 11:15:22 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa17941; 24 Jul 95 11:15 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08997; Mon, 24 Jul 95 08:12:46 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06979; Mon, 24 Jul 95 09:11:35 MDT Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 09:11:35 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #102 - NASA Funding (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 102: July 20, 1995 NASA Funding Bill Advances; Mission to Planet Earth Takes Cut On July 18, the VA/HUD appropriations bill for FY 1996 went before the full House Appropriations Committee. The resulting bill, which funds NASA, NSF, veterans' and housing programs, was changed significantly from the version passed by the VA/HUD subcommittee the previous week. The original bill reported out of the subcommittee, chaired by Jerry Lewis (R-CA), made drastic or fatal reductions to several space science programs, including Cassini, SIRTF, and SOFIA, and recommended closing the Goddard, Langley and Marshall Space Flight Centers. (See FYIs #97, 99 for details.) Having achieved his self-described objective of focusing NASA's attention on budget realities, Lewis successfully offered an amendment in the full committee mark-up to provide funding for Cassini, SOFIA, and Gravity Probe B, as well as the three NASA centers. The amendment offsets some of this additional funding by cutting $332.6 million from Mission to Planet Earth. The full committee's version of the bill would reduce NASA's total budget to $13.67 billion, $705 million below the current FY 1995 level (after rescissions) and $590 million below the Administration's FY 1996 request. Although it provides full funding for the shuttle and space station, Lewis's amendment would delay availability of $390.0 million in space station funds until August of 1996. Details of the full committee's changes to NASA funding include: Cassini and its related services would receive the full request of $249.0 million; SOFIA would be funded at $28.7 million, $20 million less than the request; Gravity Probe B would receive $51.5 million; Mission to Planet Earth would be reduced by $332.6 million from a request of $1.34 billion; and funding for the three centers would be provided at the requested amounts. (The fate of SIRTF remains unclear.) An amendment was offered by David Obey, the appropriations committee ranking minority member, to terminate the space station and distribute those funds to other programs within the bill, but it was defeated on a voice vote. The committee report language will be changed to reflect the Lewis amendment. A future FYI will provide selected details of the new report language when it becomes available. The bill is expected to receive consideration by the full House within the next two weeks. In the Senate, VA/HUD ranking minority member Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has promised to fight for additional funding for Mission to Planet Earth. An authorizing bill for NASA, marked up by the House Science Space Subcommittee on July 19, ran along almost identical lines as the amended appropriations bill, reducing Mission to Planet Earth to pay for Cassini, SOFIA, Gravity Probe B, and the centers. The bill, H.R. 2043, combined with the subcommittee's previous authorization for the space station (see FYI #92), would give NASA a total FY 1996 spending ceiling of $13.66 billion. The authorization bill is scheduled to come before the full House Science Committee on July 25. Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) plans to offer an amendment to fully restore Mission to Planet Earth funding, with offsetting cuts to be taken "generally" from the entire space science budget. House Science ranking member George Brown (D-CA) will offer an alternative bill authorizing $13.79 billion for NASA and maintaining Mission to Planet Earth, but it has little chance of passing. In further NASA budget action, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee moved quickly today to mark up S. 1048, its version of authorizing legislation for the space agency. While details are still unknown, commerce committee chairman Larry Pressler (R-SD) noted in introducing the bill that it attempts to fund space science, the space station, aeronautics, and Mission to Planet Earth at, or near, their requested levels. Pressler said, "I believe Mission to Planet Earth may be NASA's most important and relevant program." He expressed concern "that, under the new budget constraints in which we find ourselves, some may seek to sacrifice Mission to Planet Earth, and space science in general, to fund Space Station. That would be a disservice to the Nation and I will oppose any such move strongly." ##END########## From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Mon Jul 24 11:24:38 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27459; Mon, 24 Jul 95 11:24:35 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20671; 24 Jul 95 11:24 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09099; Mon, 24 Jul 95 08:21:44 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06997; Mon, 24 Jul 95 09:20:33 MDT Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 09:20:32 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #103 - Commerce Budget Outlook (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 103: July 21, 1995 Mixed Bag: Outlook on Commerce Department Funding It came as no surprise when the full House Appropriations Committee voted on Wednesday to cut FY 1996 funding for the Department of Commerce. As expected, this bill, which will next be considered by the full House, eliminates funding for the Advanced Technology Program. The bill does contain money for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program and, as expected, NIST's core programs, which include intramural laboratory research in physics and material sciences. In addition to this appropriations bill is separate legislation which would abolish the Department of Commerce. This legislation will be the subject of three days of hearings in House and Senate committees next week. The House Appropriations Committee bill, H.R. 2076, would reduce NIST's appropriation for its core programs (Scientific and Technical Research and Services) by $47.7 million from the FY 1996 request (or $1.5 million below current funding.) The committee report states: "The amounts provided for this account reflect the Committee's commitment to funding basic research programs that benefit the nation's industries." The committee report recommends a total of $263.0 million for this activity, and shows a breakdown of this funding as providing $27.4 million for physics (the request for NIST's intramural laboratory physics research was $28.1 million.) The committee provides $53.4 million for material sciences and engineering intramural laboratory research; the request was for $54.3 million. Note that other NIST intramural activities can include work in physics and material sciences. The committee provides no money for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). As an explanation, the committee report states this is "because of the likelihood that no authorization [law] will be provided for the program." At a June 28 mark up of NIST authorizing legislation, the House Science Committee rebuffed efforts by committee Democrats to authorize ATP and other technology programs (see FYIs #82 and 89.) Yet, the appropriations committee did provide $81.1 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (MEP) ($146.6 million was requested; current year funding is $90.6 million) which was not authorized by the Science Committee. None of the science or technology authorization bills considered by the new Congress have been signed into law by President Clinton. It is expected that this appropriations bill will go to the House floor next week -- perhaps Wednesday or Thursday. A big unknown is what amendments may be offered on the floor, with some expectation that there may be a move to dismantle the department through this appropriations bill. The House leadership is believed to be generally opposed to this approach. On the whole, supporters of the Commerce Department are cautiously optimistic about H.R. 2076 in the House, but much less certain about the situation in the Senate. On another front, next Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, hearings are scheduled in both the House and Senate on H.R. 1756 and S. 929, which are similar bills to abolish the Department of Commerce. The House bill, sponsored by Rep. Dick Chrysler (R-MI), has 66 cosponsors. The Senate bill, sponsored by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) has 5 cosponsors, including Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS). There is a growing awareness about the effect which these bills would have not only on programs like ATP, but also on NIST's core programs. Section 206 of the Senate bill calls for NIST's laboratories to be sold "to a private sector entity intending to perform substantially the same functions...." Other functions would be transferred to the National Science Foundation. The Office of Technology Policy, ATP and the MEP would be terminated. NOAA programs would be transferred or terminated. How much support there is in either chamber for these bills is unknown. The budget resolution passed by each chamber calls for the elimination of Commerce. The Senate bill has, in addition to Abraham and Dole, four other co-sponsors: Brown (R-CO), Faircloth (R-NC), Gramm (R-TX), and Nickles (R-OK). The House bill has, besides Chrysler, 66 cosponsors, all but one a Republican. They include Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-OH), Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Livingston (R-LA), Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-NY), and VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee chairman Ron Packard (R-CA). House Science Committee Chairman Bob Walker (R-PA), a frequent critic of many Commerce technology programs, is not a cosponsor. The battle over the continuation of the programs of the Department of Commerce, and indeed the department itself, will likely be fought out on the House and Senate floors. The degree of support which constituents express for these programs will be instrumental in the decisions which Members make about these bills. H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Bill for FY 1996, will be considered by the full House next week. ##END########## From josh@lternet.edu Wed Jul 26 11:37:12 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06071; Wed, 26 Jul 95 11:37:11 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20461; 26 Jul 95 11:37 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01650; Wed, 26 Jul 95 08:34:52 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 08:34:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Joshua Greenberg X-Sender: josh@lternet.washington.edu To: students@lternet.edu, pi@lternet.edu Subject: Intersite travel awards -Fall 95 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The last student travel awards competition did not use up all the available money. So the Executive committee is allowing another round of awards to be due in October. Below is the information needed to apply. For any questions contact me. Josh Greenberg LTER graduate student intersite travel awards Fall 1995 Version _____________________________________________________________ Purpose: To increase intersite research within the LTER system. The Network office will fund three graduate students up to $1,500 dollars to cover cost of travel to an LTER site(s). This travel cost includes transportation, lodging, and food expenses to the student. Additional student research expenses will be covered either by funding from the host site or the student's own funding . Who is eligible: Any currently enrolled (LTER) graduate student at a U.S. LTER educational institution who wishes to work at LTER sites. Deadline for submission: October 1, 1995, Requirements: (a) Submit 5 copies of proposal (4 pp single spaced max). (b) Supporting letter from LTER site(s). (c) Budget justification. (d) Student cv or resume. Proposal contents: The written proposals should include the following (a) Abstract or executive summary. (b) Description of central question and methods for research at home site. (c) What benefits accrue to the student by extending research to another site(s). (d) Timeline of proposed study. Evaluations: proposals will be evaluated based on (a) creativity and quality of research, (b) contributions to LTER intersite research, (c) qualifications of student, (d) budget justification. Awards: Will be announced by LTER Network office by mid November. *Successful applicants are expected to write a brief (1-3 page) progress report within one year of award. Send Submission Information To: Student intersite pilot project, c/o LTER Network office College of Forest Resources, Box 352100 University of Washington Seattle, WA. 98195. From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Jul 26 13:31:17 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06762; Wed, 26 Jul 95 13:31:16 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20004; 26 Jul 95 13:31 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03005; Wed, 26 Jul 95 10:17:07 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 10:17:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, jobs@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Postdoctoral Position--Jornada LTER at Duke Univ. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Postdoctoral Position: Landscape & Ecological Modeling Jornada LTER at Duke University One of the objectives of the NSF-supported Jornada LTER is to develop models of desertification in the Jornada Basin of southern New Mexico. While our work is based on local studies in New Mexico, we believe it is applicable to other areas in the world and may be useful in the development of global-scale models of desertification. The main responsibility of this individual will be to develop a spatially-explicit landscape model that addresses the underlying mechanisms of desertification. One immediate objective is to link our process-based model-PALS (Patch Arid Lands Simulator)-to a hydrology model. The Jornada modeling team includes Athol Abrams (hydrology modeling; SUNY-Buffalo), Dale Gillette (dust modeling; NOAA-North Carolina), Harbin Li (spatial statistics; USFS-Charleston, SC) and Jim Reynolds (ecosystem and landscape modeling; Duke University). Availability: Immediate Salary: $24,000/year. Position carries full Duke benefits. Application and Additional Information: Send CV, statement of research interests, and the names and addresses of three references to Dr. James F. Reynolds, Department of Botany, Phytotron Bldg., Box 90340, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0340; email: JFReynol@acpub.Duke.edu From jgosz@ladrones.unm.edu Wed Jul 26 16:34:34 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07764; Wed, 26 Jul 95 16:34:33 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab11068; 26 Jul 95 16:34 EDT Received: from ladrones.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04990; Wed, 26 Jul 95 13:29:20 PDT Received: by ladrones.unm.edu (4.1/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08252; Wed, 26 Jul 95 11:50:09 MDT Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 11:50:09 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #106-NASA Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 106: July 25, 1995 House Appropriations Committee Report Language on NASA As reported in FYI #102, the House Appropriations Committee passed the fiscal year 1996 VA/HUD/Independent Agencies appropriations bill on July 18. In doing so, the appropriations committee made some significant changes to the NASA portion of the bill, including restoring funds for the Cassini mission to Saturn and the Goddard, Langley, and Marshall Space Flight Centers. Report language accompanying the full committee's bill provides further information on the committee's recommendations. Portions of the report relating to NASA's Earth and space science and the downsizing of the space agency are quoted below: SPACE SCIENCE: "The Committee recommends $1,975,400,000 for fiscal year 1996, an increase of $16,500,000 to the budget request of $1,958,900,000. The funding adjustments within this account are as follows: No funding is provided for the Space Infrared Telescope Facility, a reduction of $15,000,000 from the budget request. Funding for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) is set at $28,700,000, a reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget request. Finally, the Committee has included $51,500,000 for the Gravity Probe B program to ensure its schedule remains intact as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in their report on the project." MISSION TO PLANET EARTH: "The Committee recommends a reduction of $338,600,000 from the fiscal year 1996 budget request of $1,341,100,000. The reduction includes $6,000,000 to be taken from the Consortium for International Earth Science Network, which will terminate NASA support for this project. In addition $332,600,000 in other funding reductions are directed. The Administrator of NASA is directed to provide a restructured program to the Committee by August 31, 1995." NASA DOWNSIZING: "On May 17, 1995 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced the results of its Zero-Base Assessment of operations. The conclusions announced at that time were the result of an extensive review effort which had begun in November of 1994 and gained added urgency when NASA's long term budget was reduced approximately $5 billion by the President in January of 1995. "Six basic principles guided the review team as they did their work. Those basic principles were: 1.) No NASA Centers are to be closed; 2.) Avoid major program impacts; 3.) Establish meaningful missions and roles for each Center; 4.) Retain core competency of the workforce; 5.) Pursue immediate efficiency and re-structuring saving; and 6.) Strive for outsourcing, privatization, and commercialization. "The Committee believes the plan which resulted from the Zero-Base Assessment is credible and will achieve $5 billion in savings beginning in fiscal year 1997. However, events which have transpired since January and which were not considered by the Zero-Base Assessment team cause the Committee to be concerned that the long term budget target, which is much lower than that considered by the management team, can only be achieved by revisiting the first two principles. Namely, serious action must be taken to reduce infrastructure through re-structuring of NASA Centers, and major programs will need to be altered or canceled. "The Committee has therefore included language in the Bill which directs NASA to complete a study by March 31, 1996 on the cost of performing functions at current Space Flight Centers and Research Centers and logical alternative locations, with a goal of achieving significant cost savings through consolidation or re-structuring." House leaders hope to bring three appropriations bills, including the VA/HUD bill, to the floor before the end of this week. ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Jul 26 18:21:38 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08073; Wed, 26 Jul 95 18:21:37 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05425; 26 Jul 95 18:21 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06403; Wed, 26 Jul 95 15:20:28 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 15:20:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: NSF Media Advisory re Social & Behavioral Sciences Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR MEDIA ADVISORY PA/M 95-31 Date: July 18, 1995 Memo to: Science and Technology Journalists From: Public Affairs Division Subject: MEDIA AVAILABILITY Who: Dr. Anne Petersen Deputy Director, National Science Foundation When: 10 a.m. Thursday, July 27 Where: National Press Building 529 14th St. NW, Washington D.C. (Room 420) Why: Much discussion in the current congressional budget cycle has revolved around the role of the social and behavioral sciences at NSF. These research activities are integrated with those of other disciplines, and have been part of NSF's research agenda since 1950. The current attention serves to educate both the scientific and general communities about their function and value. Of concern to all disciplines is the system for making grant decisions. In a very competitive and increasingly complex grant making environment, it must be both valid and effective. NSF has traditionally depended on merit review by peers to guide the proposal decision process. A recent study group has reaffirmed the central value of this system, but also has recommended actions for improvement. Those actions are now beginning. Specific Topics Will Include: Integration of scientific research disciplines Proposal review process NSF's leadership role in time of change Contact: Mary Hanson/(703) 306-1070/email: mhanson@nsf.gov From smartin@lternet.edu Wed Jul 26 18:54:07 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08157; Wed, 26 Jul 95 18:54:06 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ac12356; 26 Jul 95 18:54 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06851; Wed, 26 Jul 95 15:51:16 PDT Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 15:51:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: (7) Autumn 1995 Field Tech Jobs at Sevilleta LTER Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR As part of the Sevilleta LTER Program, I need to hire seven (7) research assistants for field sampling this fall. The positions will last for up to 7 weeks, beginning in mid-September. Would you please pass this along to any recently graduated students who might be interested in full-time field work for September and October this fall? Thanks! Sincerely yours, Bob Parmenter Sevilleta LTER ***************************************************************************** JOB ANNOUNCEMENT Seven (7) Biology Department Field Technician Positions Department contact: Dr. Robert R. Parmenter Department of Biology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 Telephone: 505-277-7619 FAX: 505-277-5355 Email: parmentr@sevilleta.unm.edu Pay rate and hours: $6.00/hour, 40 hours/week; daily hours variable. Job Duration: Mid-September through October, 1995; total of 4-7 weeks full-time. Job location: Workers must be able to work at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, Socorro, New Mexico from Monday to Friday each week. Housing and kitchens will be provided free of charge at the Sevilleta Field Research Station. Food must be provided by the employee. Job Description: The field work includes measuring plants and abundances of vertebrate and invertebrate animal populations. Some computer data entry work will be performed. Generally, individual technicians will work either on plants or animals, but not usually both. Qualifications: College-level biology coursework preferred. Previous experience in field biological studies preferred. Skills in identifying plants and animals desirable. Applicants should be in good physical condition, as outdoor activity is required. Some typing or computer data entry capability is desired. Applications: Contact Dr. Robert Parmenter at Sevilleta LTER for application materials. Applications are due no later than Friday, August 18, 1995. From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Jul 27 19:47:44 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12248; Thu, 27 Jul 95 19:47:43 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22960; 27 Jul 95 19:47 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16459; Thu, 27 Jul 95 16:47:23 PDT Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:47:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: epi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: eRudin@lternet.washington.edu, NET@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Fall 1995 LTER Network News--PRELIMINARY TOPICS LIST Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear LTER PIs, students, staff, et al.: Below is a preliminary topics/proposed contributors list for the Fall '95 (October) LTER Network News. Please let me know if you have anything to add or, if you are identified as a contributor, whether you are able to contribute something by the deadline noted. I'll be contacting you in the next few days (if I haven't already) to discuss length, content, and other specifications. Thank you! Fall 1995 LTER Network News--Preliminary Topics List COPY DEADLINE: Friday, September 1 (delayed from earlier date provided to some contributors) >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> COVER - Network Statistics (B. Hayden) SITE FEATURES - Palmer Station (R. Ross and/or L.Quetin) - McMurdo Dry Valleys (B. Wharton) NETWORK OFFICE ACTIVITIES - ILTER Server Development Training (R. Nottrott) - GPS Workshop (J. Vande Castle) - NET Home Page completed (announcement & screen prints-SM) SITE NEWS (short items on new projects, interesting results, new facilities or personnel--photos esp. welcome!) - Online Datasets (Ingersoll table) - Training grants-Lakes & Streams (C. Stein/NTL & R. Edwards/UW) - Site items: LUQ-NRCS soil survey (received-unsolicited) Other? COMMITTEES (any recent activities to report?) - Climate (Greenland) - Technology (Bowser) - Graduate Students (Greenberg) - Synthesis (Wharton &/or Gross) - Data Managers (Brunt) - Publications (Hayden) WORKSHOPS - Biodiversity (B. Waide - next issue?) - Roots (C. Bledsoe) - Phenology (M. Swartz) NATIONAL - Ecological Synthesis Center opportunities (R. Ross?) INTERNATIONAL - Summary of recent activities: Czech exchange, Iberia exchange, ILTER trips to Australia, Central America., Taiwan, Hungary, CERN review (Gosz + others) - Mexico interactions (Emily Rudin) - ISRIC (received-unsolicited) PUBLICATIONS (Please provide full citations for LTER-sponsored pubs in press or published that have not been listed in the newsletter before, any new publications of general interest to the LTER community, or publications featuring your site.) - LTER-sponsored site publications - Publications of Interest - Publications on LTER or LTER sites CALENDAR (Please supply information for any upcoming--in the next 6 mos.--workshops, meetings, etc., including contact information) NSF-(SM will compile from STIS) LTER Meetings- LTER and other Workshops & Conferences- Other topics? Comments on any of these? From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Jul 31 18:21:31 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23049; Mon, 31 Jul 95 18:21:30 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa07461; 31 Jul 95 18:21 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25120; Mon, 31 Jul 95 15:19:12 PDT Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:19:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: jobs@lternet.washington.edu, pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Post-Doc--Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR DATE: July 31, 1995 POSITION: POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE The Ecosystems Center at the Marine Biological Laboratory anticipates funding for a Postdoctoral Research Associate to join in a project on "Multiple Resource Interactions and Ecosystem Function." DUTIES: The project will entail a theoretical analysis of constraints on species composition, productivity, growth, organic matter accumulation, and ecosystem element retention associated with the interactions among multiple resources. This analysis will be based on further development of a model that simulates the cycling of two element resources, the acclimation of vegetation to changes in the availability of these resources, competition among plant species for those resources, and the microbial processing of soil organic matter. We will apply this model to several existing data sets from Alaska, Sweden, and selected LTER sites. EDUCATION/RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: Candidates are expected to have a Ph.D. in Terrestrial Ecology or related field, a strong background in biogeochemical cycles and/or plant species interactions, the application of mathematics to ecological concepts, good writing skills, and the ability to work well in collaborative research. DURATION OF POSITION: The appointment will be for 1 year with a possible renewal for up to 2 additional years. DEADLINE: Applications will be accepted until a suitable candidate is identified. Please submit resume and names of 3 references to: Human Resources, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, 02543; phone: 508-289-7422; e-mail: resume@mbl.edu. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer/Non-smoking workplace. From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Aug 1 16:28:16 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA26976; Tue, 1 Aug 95 16:28:14 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04100; 1 Aug 95 16:28 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05376; Tue, 1 Aug 95 13:22:03 PDT Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 13:22:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Contact Change at EMAP, FYI(fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 14:52:00 -0400 (EDT) From: SIDNEY DRAGGAN 202-260-4724 To: smartin@lternet.washington.edu Dr. Sidney Draggan Associate Director Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) has accepted the position of Special Assistant for Science Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency His New Address: Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW - [Mail Code 1103] Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: 202.260.4724 Facsimile: 202.260.4852 From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Aug 1 20:26:56 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28006; Tue, 1 Aug 95 20:26:55 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12093; 1 Aug 95 20:27 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03075; Tue, 1 Aug 95 17:25:36 PDT Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 17:25:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Cc: cDybas@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Institute of Northern Forestry Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Les Viereck just sent me a fax of today's front-page article in the News-Miner about the likely shut down of the UAF Institute of Northern Forestry lab as a result of threatened Congressional budget cuts. It specifically notes the threat to the LTER Program. I'm forwarding a copy to Cheryl Dybas at NSF. Let me know if any of you would like a copy. Stephanie From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Aug 3 16:50:46 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06044; Thu, 3 Aug 95 16:50:44 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08833; 3 Aug 95 16:50 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17489; Thu, 3 Aug 95 13:39:26 PDT Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 13:39:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: jobs@lternet.washington.edu, pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Professor/Vegetation & Agricultural Land Use, ITC, Netherlands Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="Boundary (ID 1dsXUUN8rCNyfb9lVdUisw)" Content-Id: Status: ORS This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --Boundary (ID 1dsXUUN8rCNyfb9lVdUisw) Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: Subject: Professor of vegetation and agricultural land use survey ITC, International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences P.O. Box 6 7500 AA Enschede The Netherlands _________________________________________________________________ The Department of Land Resource and Urban Sciences, one of the scientific Departments of ITC, is concerned with environment and development. Vegetation and Agricultural Sciences (VAS) is a Division of this Department. The VAS Division is responsible for the collection, evaluation and integration of georeferenced information on land cover and land use for: (a) sustainable crop and livestock production and (b) the environmentally sound management of natural and man- made ecosystems with emphasis on nature and biodiversity conservation. At the moment, the Division employs 9 scientific staff on a structural basis and 4 scientific staff on a contract basis. The Institute invites applicants for the post of: PROFESSOR OF VEGETATION AND AGRICULTURAL LAND USE SURVEY (M/F) The Professor will perform teaching and research within the defined framework of the Institute, monitor and stimulate the performance and the development of his staff, be responsible for the coordination of activities for (inter-)departmental courses, promote interdisciplinary cooperation within ITC and maintain close contacts and promote national and international cooperation with Universities and other relevant organizations. Main Tasks As head of the VAS Division the Professor will participate in and be responsible for the conduct and quality of teaching, research and advisory services in the fields of: * methodology for the mapping and monitoring of (semi)natural vegetation and agricultural land use; * integration of information on land cover and land use for the ecologically sound management and the conservation of natural resources; * integration of information on agro-ecology, agricultural land use, agriculture and vegetation for land evaluation, land use planning and sustainable land management. He leads the management team of the Division and is a member of the Board of the Department, to which he is accountable for the management of the Division. He is also expected to occupy (by turns) the chair of the Department for periods up to four years. Requirements The candidate should hold a PhD or equivalent and have international recognition and contacts. He should have teaching and management experience and relevant research ability proven by a credible record of publications. He should have up-to-date practical experience in developing countries and experience in the application of survey methods of (semi-)natural vegetation, with emphasis on remote sensing and geo-information systems, for at least one of the following major fields of application: 1. Vegetation/rangeland ecology and management; 2. Management of national parks, nature reserves, etc. Additional experience in the survey of agricultural land use would be an advantage. The candidate should be proficient in the English language and have a good working knowledge of two other modern languages. Foreign applicants should be prepared to learn the Dutch language. In view of the ratio between men and women of the staff of ITC, in case of equal qualifications and abilities, preference will be given to a female candidate. Information Details on this position and information on the structure and operations of the VAS Division and the structural plan of the Department will be sent to all applicants. A psychological test and a guest lecture may be part of the application procedure. Selected candidates will be invited to ITC to present their ideas and intentions to the Division and the Department. The gross annual salary ranges from DG 94.000,-- to DG 138.000. Interested candidates are requested to send their application and detailed CV to the head of the Personnel and Organization Department, drs. M.W. ten Kate, PO Box 6, 7500 AA Enschede, The Netherlands. Additional information on the position may be obtained from H. Huizing, acting head of the VAS Division. e-mail: huizing@itc.nl Information from third parties regarding suitable candidates will be welcomed and be treated confidentially. Closing date for applications: 15 October 1995. _________________________________________________________________ --Boundary (ID 1dsXUUN8rCNyfb9lVdUisw)-- From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Aug 4 19:00:01 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10555; Fri, 4 Aug 95 18:59:59 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10341; 4 Aug 95 19:00 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24356; Fri, 4 Aug 95 15:39:11 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA17254; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:38:03 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00501; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:31:47 -0600 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:31:47 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #108 - Commerce Department Update (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 108: July 27, 1995 Uncertain Future for the Commerce Department This has been a busy week on Capitol Hill for the U.S. Department of Commerce. Three committee hearings have been held on legislation to dismantle the department, and the House finished its consideration of the department's FY 1996 appropriation. What has emerged is a very uncertain future for the Commerce Department. Earlier this week, two House subcommittees held a joint hearing on H.R. 1756, which would dismantle the Commerce Department. Secretary Ronald Brown left no doubt about how he viewed this legislation, saying, "There's been a lot of hot rhetoric about this issue, and I don't know if it is about saving money or about government restructuring to make government more effective, or trophy hunting." Senator William Roth (R-DE) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and will be one of the architects of the department's fate. At a hearing on Tuesday on S. 929, he said dismantling Commerce is "not a new idea, but an idea whose time has come." Roth sponsored similar legislation in 1967. Ranking Minority Member John Glenn (D-OH), while not a supporter of the bill, did say, "Commerce is clearly in need of some kind of reorganization." Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) was the hearing's lead witness. Dole spoke for only a few minutes, but said of the department's elimination that it is "certainly one we ought to start looking at." He said his decision to dismantle the department was not a difficult one for him to make, adding "we can no longer afford" Commerce. Roth, while strongly supportive of remaking Commerce, said he "frankly disagrees" with S. 929 since it would splinter the department's activities. He favors consolidation of government activities, and is especially concerned about a viable federal trade function. Roth asked Brown if he could support a consolidation of the department's activities. Brown replied, "we are open," although he quickly linked this to a government-wide reorganization. Yesterday, the House finished its consideration of H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Bill for FY 1996. No changes were made affecting NIST programs, and the department itself was left intact with approximately 83% of its current year budget. The House rejected by a vote of 204-yes to 223-no an amendment offered by Alan Mollohan (D-WV) to lift the prohibition on FY 1996 money being used for new projects under the Advanced Technology Program. Despite House approval of an FY 1996 budget for Commerce, the department is by no means out of the woods. Republican freshmen threatened to defeat the appropriations bill unless they received assurances that Commerce would be dismantled. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) signed a letter pledging "our firm commitment to incorporate the dismantling legislation" into the budget reconciliation bill later this year. Reconciliation bills usually pertain to revenue and entitlement programs, but can serve as a vehicle for other legislation. In remarks on the floor, Rep. Sam Brownback (R-KS) declared, "I intend to vote for the final passage of the appropriations bill because this is the beginning of the end of the Department of Commerce." He said that the appropriations bill was not the place to eliminate the department, but added that authorizing committees were moving ahead with legislation to eliminate, privatize, and consolidate the department's activities. Rep. Dick Chrysler (R-MI), sponsor of H.R. 1756, echoed these remarks, saying, "I too intend to vote for final passage of this appropriations bill. ...we have received assurances from the speaker and the majority leader that the Department of Commerce will be dismantled as part of this year's budget reconciliation package." President Clinton has declared his intention to veto any legislation which dismantles the Commerce Department. How this will be resolved is anyone's guess. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Aug 4 19:01:43 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10568; Fri, 4 Aug 95 19:01:42 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10552; 4 Aug 95 19:01 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24354; Fri, 4 Aug 95 15:36:49 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA17248; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:35:39 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00495; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:29:23 -0600 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:29:22 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #107 - Graduate Education Hearing (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 107: July 27, 1995 Subcommittee on Basic Research Hearing on Graduate Education A National Academy of Sciences report, "Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers," was the focus of a July 13 hearing by the House Subcommittee on Basic Research. Although not intended as a pretext to new legislation, it provided an opportunity for the subcommittee to examine this issue. The first witness was the chairman of the committee producing the report, Phillip A. Griffiths of Princeton University. He characterized as a myth the contention that "most PhDs go on to careers in academe." Griffiths also described as a myth "that there is high unemployment among PhDs." The 1993 unemployment rate for all scientists and engineers was 1.6%; for new PhDs, approximately 2%. He continued, "recent PhDs are finding jobs -- but they are finding non-academic jobs more easily than they are finding academic research positions. They are feeling the pain of unmet expectations." Among the committee's recommendations were: (1) "graduate programs be more flexible and provide more options for students," (2) "students should receive better career information and guidance," (3) "time to degree should be tightened," (4) "a new class of grants called education/training grants." Committee member response to Griffiths was positive. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), and later Rep. George Brown (D-CA), wondered if the longer time to attain a degree was because of the desire of research universities to maintain a supply of inexpensive labor. Griffiths replied that there were many factors responsible for this phenomenon. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), citing the 1.6% unemployment figure said, "hell, that's not unemployment; that's full employment." Regarding the lack of preferred employment opportunities, he said, "join the rest of us." Subcommittee chairman Steven Schiff (R-NM) agreed that unemployment is low, but wondered aloud about underemployment, to which Griffiths acknowledged that it is "a major problem and getting worse." He said the committee did not examine salary levels. Next to testify were NSF Director Neal Lane and NIH Director Harold Varmus. In Lane's prepared testimony, he said of unemployment and underemployment, "it is easy to imagine the situation getting worse before it gets any better." He continued, "The issue at stake is not simply whether there will be enough faculty openings for tomorrow's Ph.D.s, but rather why has a society so broadly based in science and technology managed to define so narrowly the role and responsibilities of scientists and engineers within its midst." During later questioning, Lane said, "if you don't have a job, the unemployment rate is 100%." Chairman Schiff asked Lane and Varmus to prepare a letter within 90 days detailing how they will respond to the report's recommendations. The final panel of witnesses was drawn from private industry and academe. Kevin Aylesworth, founder of the Young Scientists Network, recommended, as did other witnesses and subcommittee members, that government-mandated caps on graduate students should not be imposed. He continued, "The pool of graduate students should be allowed to shrink or grow in response to changes in demand in the end-user market." In his testimony, George Walker, Chair of the Council of Graduate Schools, cited data that will appear in a soon-to-be-released report by the American Institute of Physics Education and Employment Statistics Division. These statistics show that there has been approximately a 20% decline in first year physics graduate students in PhD granting departments from 1992 to 1995. An executive summary of the National Academy of Sciences report, "Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers" is available on the NAS home page at: http://www.nas.edu/nap/online/grad/summary.html The full report can be purchased in hard copy by calling 800-624-6242. The American Institute of Physics report will soon be available, and can be obtained by calling 301-209-3067. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Aug 4 19:09:12 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10583; Fri, 4 Aug 95 19:09:10 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11608; 4 Aug 95 19:09 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24430; Fri, 4 Aug 95 15:49:48 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA17393; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:48:40 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00525; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:42:24 -0600 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:42:23 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #109 - Updates (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 109: August 1, 1995 Recent Developments and Updates OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ELIMINATED IN CONFERENCE: House and Senate conferees on July 27 agreed to a compromise version of H.R. 1854, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. The conference report, H. Rept. 104-212, would terminate the OTA. (The House version of the bill would have provided $15 million for OTA and incorporated it with the Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service, while the Senate version called for its termination. See FYIs #88, 104). The conference report now goes to the House and Senate floors for approval, but the whole bill must be considered on an up-or-down vote. It is unlikely that appropriations for the entire legislative branch will be derailed because of a single issue such as OTA. The House floor is scheduled to begin consideration of the conference report on August 4. SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE PASSES ENERGY AND WATER BILL: H.R. 1905, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for FY 1996, was approved by the full Senate Appropriations Committee on July 27. The Senate's version of the bill would reduce funding for fusion energy research and high energy physics below even the House's recommendation (see FYI #100 for the House's actions.) Consideration of the bill has begun on the Senate floor. Further FYIs will contain selected portions of the Senate appropriations committee report, S. Rept. 104-120. VA/HUD/INDEPENDENT AGENCIES FUNDING BILL PASSES HOUSE FLOOR: Last night, House members passed H.R. 2099, which makes appropriations for veterans, housing, and a number of independent agencies, including NSF and NASA. NSF programs survived with the House Appropriations Committee's funding recommendations intact (see FYI #101 for details of the Committee's recommendations.) The bill would reduce NSF's budget by $200 million from the President's request, to be taken from the Research and Related Activities Account. Reports indicate that NASA funding, too, remains close to what the House Appropriations Committee recommended (see FYI #102.) The bill would fully fund the space station and shuttle programs but reduce Mission to Planet Earth by over $300 million from the request. The Cassini mission to Saturn would receive its full request, while SOFIA would be partially funded and SIRTF would apparently not receive funding. HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE CONSIDERS NASA AUTHORIZATION: While the appropriations (funding) bill for NASA passed the House floor with a cut of more than $300 million for Mission to Planet Earth, members of the House Science Committee voted on July 25 in a NASA authorizing bill (H.R. 2043) to fund the program at a level nearer to the President's request. The vote was on an amendment by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) to shift $274 million to Mission to Planet Earth from other NASA programs. An amendment by ranking member George Brown (D-CA) to increase the total NASA budget failed. While the authorizing bill can only set spending ceilings and provide guidance to appropriators, Mission to Planet Earth can count both authorizers and appropriators among its supporters in the Senate. HOUSE AND SENATE CALENDARS: The House is scheduled to begin its August recess at the end of this week; the Senate will remain in session an additional week. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Aug 4 19:12:19 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10593; Fri, 4 Aug 95 19:12:18 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12088; 4 Aug 95 19:12 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24455; Fri, 4 Aug 95 15:53:23 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA17407; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:52:15 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00537; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:45:59 -0600 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:45:58 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #110 - DOE Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 110: August 2, 1995 DOE Funding Bill Passes Senate Appropriations Committee, Senate Floor Yesterday, the Senate passed H.R. 1905, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. The bill, which makes appropriations for the Department of Energy, made its way through the Senate appropriations process quickly. The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee held its mark-up of H.R. 1905 on July 25, the full Appropriations Committee marked up the bill two days later, and floor consideration was begun on July 31 and completed yesterday. Early reports indicate that several amendments to the bill were approved on the Senate floor, altering it from the version passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee. In particular, DOE would be allowed to allocate funds (of up to $56 million) for continued operation of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at Princeton, while funding (of $12.5 million) for the gas turbine modular helium reactor would be eliminated. It is not clear whether TFTR operations would be funded from new money provided to DOE or by a reallocation of funds from other DOE programs. Few details of the Senate-passed bill are available yet. Below and in subsequent FYIs, information is provided from the Senate Appropriations Committee's version of the bill, and its accompanying report, S. Report 104-120. The Committee report proposed to reduce funding for several DOE science programs, including high energy physics and fusion, below the House's recommendation (see FYIs #84, 85 and 100 for the House's actions.) However, keep in mind that changes may have been made on the Senate floor, and further details will be provided, if necessary, as available. FUSION ENERGY: The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended $225.1 million for the fusion program. [House recommendation: $229.1 million; Request: $366.1 million; FY95 funding: $372.6 million.] It is not known whether the fusion total was increased by the action on the Senate floor, or whether funds were simply shifted. The Committee report provides the following text: "Consistent with the direction provided in the conference report...for fiscal year 1995 (H. Rept. 103-672), the President's Advisory Council on Science and Technology [PCAST] initiated a review and evaluation of the fusion energy program. In that review...the PCAST panel recommended a stable level of funding of approximately $320,000,000 per year. A program funded at that level would provide for a core research program, operation of the Tokamak fusion test reactor [TFTR], and continued participation in the ITER project. While the Committee appreciates the efforts of the PCAST panel, the resources to fund such a program are not available.... The Committee provides funding to support a domestic core physics research and development program [including continued operation of the DIII-D and the Alcator C-Mod] following the recommendation of the PCAST panel, and to continue the U.S. participation in the engineering design activities phase of the international thermonuclear experimental reactor [ITER] project, to which the United States is committed through fiscal year 1998. "The Committee has been advised that the administration will develop a strategy for restructuring the fusion program at a reduced level of funding using the PCAST panel report as the framework.... [I]t is crucial that a restructuring of the fusion program not undermine our credibility as a reliable international partner." ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES: DOE supports some inertial confinement fusion (ICF) research within its defense programs. The Committee makes the following recommendations for ICF, as well as the National Ignition Facility. "An appropriation of $240,667,000 is recommended for the Inertial Confinement Fusion Program...[which] continues to be a major contributor to the science and technology base supporting the nuclear deterrent..." The report provides the full budget requests for the Nike laser at the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Omega laser at the University of Rochester. Regarding the National Ignition Facility, the report states, "The Committee has restored funding for the national ignition facility [NIF] deferred by the House Committee. The NIF is a key facility in maintaining the nuclear weapons science expertise required for the stockpile stewardship program and supporting the weapons effects testing. An appropriation of $37,400,000 is recommended for the NIF project, which is the same as the budget request." BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: The Appropriations Committee recommended $791.7 million for the BES program, equal to the House recommendation. [Request: $811.4 million; FY95 funding: $747.3 million.] Within BES, funding is provided for Materials Sciences, including design work on a spallation neutron source. The report says, "The Committee supports an appropriation for $8,000,000 [equal to the request] for research and development and conceptual design activities for a new spallation neutron source." DOE has indicated that Oak Ridge National Laboratory would be the preferred location for the new facility. While the Committee Report requested a competitive site selection process, this requirement was apparently removed on the Senate floor. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Aug 5 21:46:50 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12752; Sat, 5 Aug 95 21:46:48 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28690; 5 Aug 95 21:46 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28480; Sat, 5 Aug 95 18:47:30 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA25081; Sat, 5 Aug 1995 19:46:22 -0600 Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 19:46:22 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: exec@lternet.edu, dman@lternet.edu Subject: IAI funding opportunities Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Any interest in developing a proposal to begin interactions with S. America? jim ------ begin of iaiisp.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ Title : IAIISP IAI Initial Science Program Announcement Type : IAI Newsletter NSF Org: GEO Date : July 24, 1995 File : iaiisp Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) Initial Science Program (ISP) Announcement of Opportunity Background The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) is an international organization conceived as a distributed network of cooperating institutions with common research interests in global change. The following sixteen Member States have signed the IAI Agreement as of May 1995: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the United States, and Uruguay. The following eleven countries have ratified the Agreement as of May 1995: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Peru, the United States, and Uruguay. Seven research themes are currently defined for the IAI Science Agenda: Tropical Ecosystems and Biogeochemical Cycles; Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity; El Niqo-Southern Oscillation and Inter-annual Climate Variability; Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Interactions in the Inter-Tropical Americas; Comparative Studies of Oceanic, Coastal and Estuarine Processes in Temperate Zones; Comparative Temperate Terrestrial Ecosystems; and High Latitude Processes. In addition, the following cross-cutting themes are appropriate: Human Dimensions of Global Change Networks Training and Education Modeling Other cross-cutting themes (agriculture, etc.) Since the IAI is envisioned as a distributed network of cooperating institutions with common research interests, institutions are encouraged to collaborate in order to execute a coherent research program that addresses the IAI Science Agenda. It should be noted that the word science in this document is intended to mean and include any program or activity sponsored by the IAI in the areas of research, education and training, data and information management, modeling, and other cross-cutting programs. Purpose The Initial Science Program (ISP) was designed to initiate the IAI science agenda in the interim period until the Conference of the Parties, the governing body of the IAI, establishes the first set of approved IAI programs. These activities will be funded through the formal procedures established by the Agreement. These are described below under Evaluation Criteria. The actual programs and activities implemented under the ISP would be developed in consultation with the IAI Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), the Director, and the Executive Council. The Initial Science Program will be composed of high priority programs and activities that advance the goals and objectives of the IAI and which can be implemented in the near-term. Relationship to the IAI Start-Up Grants Program The United States National Science Foundation, on behalf of the IAI, has announced the IAI Start-Up Grants Program (IAISG). The IAI Start-Up grants are one time awards that may be used for activities that will facilitate the preparation of proposals for scientific research activities within the formal IAI research network. The purpose of the IAISG grants is to help increase the number of organizations participating in and contributing to the IAI network, to facilitate preliminary studies and other activities related to the development of proposals by organizations which would otherwise be unable to participate in the IAI due to limited budgets, and to aid the IAI in assessing the existing research programs and potential research activities in the region. The IAISG are to work in parallel with the IAI ISP. The IAISG have a broader, more long-term focus in the development of the IAI research network and the IAI ISP have a narrower near term focus to augment existing programs. Please note that participation in the IAI ISP does not prohibit participation in the IAISG, or vice versa. Program Description The IAI Initial Science Program grants will be one-time awards that may be used for activities that have near-term benefits to the advancement of the IAI Science Agenda. The ISP awards are not renewable, but may have a duration of up to three years. The IAI has allocated approximately $2.0 million for this activity and expects to make 15-20 awards. Examples of ISP activities include: Research efforts that seed or foster the further development of programs and activities in specific high priority areas of the IAI Science Agenda; please reference the IAI Workshop Reports in the seven IAI research themes for additional details of the high priority areas of the IAI Science Agenda; Programs and activities that begin to implement cross-cutting areas of interest to the IAI, i.e. climate modeling on regional scales, data and information management, communications and electronic networks, and human dimensions of global change; Education and training programs and activities, including specialized training sessions on data and information management, GIS (Geographic Information Systems), communications and networking, fellowships for graduate and post-doctoral students, specialized workshops that further the understanding of scientific topics of significance to the IAI, i.e. modeling, remote sensing, UV-B monitoring; and Proposals for scientific workshops that advance and further define the IAI scientific agenda. The proposals can be based on a) augmenting projects or programs currently funded from other sources or b) implementing an unfunded component of a related initiative, or c) new research projects. Proposed activities must be multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional and multi-national. The eligible institutions for receiving ISP awards are colleges, universities, professional societies, for-profit, non-profit and non-academic institutions. These institutions must have formal research programs in at least one of the seven themes of the IAI Science Agenda or an IAI cross cutting theme. The ISP will provide support for research and educational activities, including partial salaries, graduate/postdoctoral students, travel, computers and software. It will not provide support for major research equipment. Evaluation Criteria The primary considerations for a successful ISP proposal are scientific excellence and the proposed plan to advance the IAI Science Agenda. Proposals will be reviewed on the basis of the following criteria. It is not necessary for a proposal to fulfill all criteria: Technical soundness of the proposal; Contribution to the IAI data network, based on information provided in the proposal. Proposals must demonstrate a commitment of in-kind contributions to the project from the proposing institutions. In-kind contributions may consist of salary support for the investigators, support of staff, or other similar items. Letters indicating these commitments should be included in the proposal appendix; Contribution to advancing the IAIs seven scientific research themes that will encompass the IAI research network and consistency with the regions scientific and environmental priorities as identified by Member Nations and developed through a series of scientific and program development workshops; Multinational collaboration; Appropriateness of the budget request for the proposed activity; Meeting standardized requirements for data collection and open exchange and distribution; Meeting IAI requirements for access to research sites; and Providing opportunities for education and training. ISP proposals will be reviewed by panels consisting of members of the IAI Scientific Advisory Committee and scientists that are experts in the themes of the IAI Science Agenda. Proposal Preparation Since three types of activities can be proposed through the ISP, the proposal format varies slightly. All proposals must submit a cover sheet with appropriate institutional authorization (signature of the director of the submitting institution) and a budget sheet. Format for Proposals That Would Augment Currently Funded Projects/Programs I. Cover sheet II. Summary of existing research program including status of project/program to date (maximum of 3 pages) III. Description of proposed ISP activity and how it relates to furthering the goals and objectives of the IAI Science Agenda (maximum of 5 pages) IV. Budget V. Curriculum Vitae of Senior Personnel Appendix A: Full research proposal of current award Appendix B: Letters of commitment for in-kind contributions (if appropriate) Appendix C: Please provide the name, address, fax and phone numbers, and e-mail address of three individuals whom you think would be qualified to review your proposal. Format for Proposals That Would Implement a Non-funded Component of a Related Initiative I. Cover sheet II. Description of proposed ISP activity and how it relates to furthering the goals and objectives of the IAI Science Agenda (maximum of 5 pages) IV. Budget V. Curriculum Vitae of Senior Personnel Appendix A: Letters of commitment for in-kind contributions (if appropriate) Appendix B: Please provide the name, address, fax and phone numbers, and e-mail address of three individuals whom you think would be qualified to review your proposal. Format for Proposals That Would Implement a New Initiative I. Cover sheet II. Description of proposed ISP activity and how it relates to furthering the goals and objectives of the IAI Science Agenda (maximum of 5 pages) IV. Budget V. Curriculum Vitae of Senior Personnel Appendix A: Letters of commitment for in-kind contributions (if appropriate) Appendix B: Please provide the name, address, fax and phone numbers, and e-mail address of three individuals whom you think would be qualified to review your proposal. Proposals should be submitted in English. Proposal Submission Since the ISP proposals must be reviewed by the IAI SAC and approved by the IAI Executive Council, which are scheduled to meet in October 1995 and March 1996, the deadlines for proposal submission are: September 8, 1995 and February 15, 1996. Proposals should be sent to: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Joint International Climate Projects/Planning Office IAI Initial Science Program Suite 100 3300 Mitchell Lane Boulder, CO 80307 U.S.A. Mid-term and Final Reports A three-page progress report will be required half way through the grant duration for all awards for 12 months or more. Site visits may be carried out at any point during the grant with a thirty day notice. Final reports should be submitted within 90 days after completion of the ISP grant. The report should address the accomplishments of the funded project and the benefits to the IAI. Mid-term and final reports should be sent to: IAI Directorate c/o INPE Av. Astronautas 1758 Sao Jose dos Campos, SP Brasil Investigators failing to submit a Final Report will not be eligible for further IAI support. Inquiries For further information on the IAI Initial Science Program or other IAI activities, please contact: Dr. Paul Filmer Telephone: (703) 306-1515 Fax: (703) 306-0091 E-mail: pfilmer@nsf.gov Dr. Ruben Lara Lara Telephone: +52 (617) 45050 ext. 2011 Fax: + 52 (617) 44880 E-mail: rlara@cicese.mx Ms. Katie Mastriani Telephone: (703) 306-1517 Fax: (703) 306-0091 E-mail: kmastria@nsf.gov COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE IAI INITIAL SCIENCE PROGRAM Name of Organization: Address: Principal Investigator (PI) Name and Title: Please specify theme: ( Tropical Ecosytems and Biogeochemical Cycles ( Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity ( El Nino-Southern Oscillation and Inter-annual Climate Variability ( Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Interactions in the Inter-Tropical Americas ( Comparative Studies of Oceanic, Coastal, and Estuarine Processes in Temperate Zones ( Comparative Temperate Terrestrial Ecosystems ( High Latitude Process ( Cross-Cutting Theme (please specify) _______________________________ Title of Proposed Project: Requested Amount (in U.S. Dollars):______________ Proposed Duration (1-36 months):_____ Requested Starting Date: _________________________ Names (Typed) Telephone Number Fax Number E-mail Address Signatures and Date PI: Co-PI: Co-PI: Co-PI: Authorized Institutional Representative (Name and Title) BUDGET SUMMARY FOR PROPOSAL TO THE IAI INITIAL SCIENCE PROGRAM Organization: Principal Investigator: Total Salary Support $ Principal Investigator Salary $ CO-PI Salary $ CO-PI Salary $ CO-PI Salary $ Other Senior Personnel Salary $ Post Doctoral Associates Support$ Graduate Student Support $ Other $ Travel $ Workshop Support $ Total Permanent Equipment $ (List item and dollar amount for each item over $1,000 U.S.) Software $ Networking Costs $ Communications $ Materials and Supplies $ Publication Costs/ Documentation/Dissemination $ Computer Services $ TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ Indirect Costs $ TOTAL REQUEST $ PI Signature and Date: Institutional Representative Signature and Date: The IAI ISP will provide support for computers, workstations and other related equipment, but not for major equipment or instrumentation. ------ end of iaiisp.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ From jbrunt@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Aug 5 22:11:54 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12769; Sat, 5 Aug 95 22:11:53 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00853; 5 Aug 95 22:12 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28535; Sat, 5 Aug 95 19:12:50 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA25293; Sat, 5 Aug 1995 20:11:42 -0600 Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 20:11:42 -0600 (MDT) From: "James W. Brunt" To: James Gosz Cc: exec@lternet.edu, dman@lternet.edu Subject: Re: IAI funding opportunities In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Jim- There is certainly an interest in the data and information management component by the DM committee, but I think it should be a part of a broader LTER effort in the Americas. James James W. Brunt Sevilleta LTER Project Department of Biology E-mail: jbrunt@sevilleta.unm.edu University of New Mexico FAX: (505) 277-5355 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 Phone: (505) 277-9342 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From jerry@lternet.edu Sun Aug 6 12:40:56 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13966; Sun, 6 Aug 95 12:40:54 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29134; 6 Aug 95 12:41 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03732; Sun, 6 Aug 95 09:41:30 PDT Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 09:41:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Jerry Franklin To: James Gosz Cc: exec@lternet.edu, dman@lternet.edu Subject: Re: IAI funding opportunities In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Jim--just to remind you again, the Trillium ecoforestry project in Tierra del Fuego may turn out to be a prime locale for an LTER program if the company commits itself to long-term funding of a Hubbard Brook-like ecosystem research project. Jerry On Sat, 5 Aug 1995, James Gosz wrote: > > Any interest in developing a proposal to begin interactions with S. America? > > > jim > > ------ begin of iaiisp.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > Title : IAIISP IAI Initial Science Program Announcement > Type : IAI Newsletter > NSF Org: GEO > Date : July 24, 1995 > File : iaiisp > > > > Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) > > Initial Science Program (ISP) > > Announcement of Opportunity > > > Background > > The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) is an > international organization conceived as a distributed network of cooperating > institutions with common research interests in global change. The following > sixteen Member States have signed the IAI Agreement as of May 1995: > Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the > Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the United > States, and Uruguay. The following eleven countries have ratified the > Agreement as of May 1995: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, > Mexico, Panama, Peru, the United States, and Uruguay. > > Seven research themes are currently defined for the IAI Science Agenda: > > Tropical Ecosystems and Biogeochemical Cycles; > Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity; > El Niqo-Southern Oscillation and Inter-annual Climate Variability; > Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Interactions in the Inter-Tropical Americas; > Comparative Studies of Oceanic, Coastal and Estuarine Processes in Temperate Zones; > Comparative Temperate Terrestrial Ecosystems; and > High Latitude Processes. > > In addition, the following cross-cutting themes are appropriate: > Human Dimensions of Global Change > Networks > Training and Education > Modeling > Other cross-cutting themes (agriculture, etc.) > > Since the IAI is envisioned as a distributed network of cooperating > institutions with common research interests, institutions are encouraged to > collaborate in order to execute a coherent research program that addresses the > IAI Science Agenda. It should be noted that the word science in this > document is intended to mean and include any program or activity sponsored by > the IAI in the areas of research, education and training, data and information > management, modeling, and other cross-cutting programs. > > Purpose > > The Initial Science Program (ISP) was designed to initiate the IAI science > agenda in the interim period until the Conference of the Parties, the > governing body of the IAI, establishes the first set of approved IAI programs. > These activities will be funded through the formal procedures established by > the Agreement. These are described below under Evaluation Criteria. The > actual programs and activities implemented under the ISP would be developed in > consultation with the IAI Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), the Director, > and the Executive Council. The Initial Science Program will be composed of > high priority programs and activities that advance the goals and objectives of > the IAI and which can be implemented in the near-term. > > Relationship to the IAI Start-Up Grants Program > > The United States National Science Foundation, on behalf of the IAI, has > announced the IAI Start-Up Grants Program (IAISG). The IAI Start-Up grants > are one time awards that may be used for activities that will facilitate the > preparation of proposals for scientific research activities within the formal > IAI research network. > > The purpose of the IAISG grants is to help increase the number of > organizations participating in and contributing to the IAI network, to > facilitate preliminary studies and other activities related to the development > of proposals by organizations which would otherwise be unable to participate > in the IAI due to limited budgets, and to aid the IAI in assessing the > existing research programs and potential research activities in the region. > The IAISG are to work in parallel with the IAI ISP. The IAISG have a broader, > more long-term focus in the development of the IAI research network and the > IAI ISP have a narrower near term focus to augment existing programs. Please > note that participation in the IAI ISP does not prohibit participation in the > IAISG, or vice versa. > > Program Description > > The IAI Initial Science Program grants will be one-time awards that may be > used for activities that have near-term benefits to the advancement of the IAI > Science Agenda. The ISP awards are not renewable, but may have a duration of > up to three years. The IAI has allocated approximately $2.0 million for this > activity and expects to make 15-20 awards. Examples of ISP activities > include: > > Research efforts that seed or foster the further development of programs and > activities in specific high priority areas of the IAI Science Agenda; please > reference the IAI Workshop Reports in the seven IAI research themes for > additional details of the high priority areas of the IAI Science Agenda; > > Programs and activities that begin to implement cross-cutting areas of > interest to the IAI, i.e. climate modeling on regional scales, data and > information management, communications and electronic networks, and human > dimensions of global change; > > Education and training programs and activities, including specialized training > sessions on data and information management, GIS (Geographic Information > Systems), communications and networking, fellowships for graduate and > post-doctoral students, specialized workshops that further the understanding > of scientific topics of significance to the IAI, i.e. modeling, remote > sensing, UV-B monitoring; and > > Proposals for scientific workshops that advance and further define the IAI > scientific agenda. > > The proposals can be based on a) augmenting projects or programs currently > funded from other sources or b) implementing an unfunded component of a > related initiative, or c) new research projects. Proposed activities must be > multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional and multi-national. > > The eligible institutions for receiving ISP awards are colleges, universities, > professional societies, for-profit, non-profit and non-academic institutions. > These institutions must have formal research programs in at least one of the > seven themes of the IAI Science Agenda or an IAI cross cutting theme. > > The ISP will provide support for research and educational activities, > including partial salaries, graduate/postdoctoral students, travel, computers > and software. It will not provide support for major research equipment. > > > Evaluation Criteria > > The primary considerations for a successful ISP proposal are scientific > excellence and the proposed plan to advance the IAI Science Agenda. > > Proposals will be reviewed on the basis of the following criteria. It is not > necessary for a proposal to fulfill all criteria: > > Technical soundness of the proposal; > > Contribution to the IAI data network, based on information provided in the > proposal. Proposals must demonstrate a commitment of in-kind contributions to > the project from the proposing institutions. In-kind contributions may > consist of salary support for the investigators, support of staff, or other > similar items. Letters indicating these commitments should be included in the > proposal appendix; Contribution to advancing the IAIs seven scientific > research themes that will encompass the IAI research network and consistency > with the regions scientific and environmental priorities as identified by > Member Nations and developed through a series of scientific and program > development workshops; Multinational collaboration; Appropriateness of the > budget request for the proposed activity; Meeting standardized requirements > for data collection and open exchange and distribution; Meeting IAI > requirements for access to research sites; and Providing opportunities for > education and training. > > ISP proposals will be reviewed by panels consisting of members of the IAI > Scientific Advisory Committee and scientists that are experts in the themes of > the IAI Science Agenda. > > Proposal Preparation > > Since three types of activities can be proposed through the ISP, the proposal > format varies slightly. All proposals must submit a cover sheet with > appropriate institutional authorization (signature of the director of the > submitting institution) and a budget sheet. > > Format for Proposals That Would Augment Currently Funded Projects/Programs > > I. Cover sheet > > II. Summary of existing research program including status of > project/program to date (maximum of 3 pages) III. Description of proposed > ISP activity and how it relates to furthering the goals and objectives of the > IAI Science Agenda (maximum of 5 pages) IV. Budget V. > Curriculum Vitae of Senior Personnel > > Appendix A: Full research proposal of current award > > Appendix B: Letters of commitment for in-kind contributions (if > appropriate) > > Appendix C: Please provide the name, address, fax and phone numbers, and > e-mail address of three individuals whom you think would be qualified to > review your proposal. > > Format for Proposals That Would Implement a Non-funded Component of a Related > Initiative > > I. Cover sheet > > II. Description of proposed ISP activity and how it relates to furthering > the goals and objectives of the IAI Science Agenda (maximum of 5 pages) > > IV. Budget > > V. Curriculum Vitae of Senior Personnel > > Appendix A: Letters of commitment for in-kind contributions (if > appropriate) > > Appendix B: Please provide the name, address, fax and phone numbers, and > e-mail address of three individuals whom you think would be qualified to > review your proposal. > > Format for Proposals That Would Implement a New Initiative > > I. Cover sheet > > II. Description of proposed ISP activity and how it relates to furthering > the goals and objectives of the IAI Science Agenda (maximum of 5 pages) IV. > Budget V. Curriculum Vitae of Senior Personnel > > Appendix A: Letters of commitment for in-kind contributions (if > appropriate) > > Appendix B: Please provide the name, address, fax and phone numbers, and > e-mail address of three individuals whom you think would be qualified to > review your proposal. > > > Proposals should be submitted in English. > > Proposal Submission > > Since the ISP proposals must be reviewed by the IAI SAC and approved by the > IAI Executive Council, which are scheduled to meet in October 1995 and March > 1996, the deadlines for proposal submission are: September 8, 1995 and > February 15, 1996. > > Proposals should be sent to: > > University Corporation for Atmospheric Research > Joint International Climate Projects/Planning Office > IAI Initial Science Program > Suite 100 > 3300 Mitchell Lane > Boulder, CO 80307 > U.S.A. > > Mid-term and Final Reports > > A three-page progress report will be required half way through the grant > duration for all awards for 12 months or more. Site visits > may be carried out at any point during the grant with a thirty > day notice. Final reports should be submitted within 90 days > after completion of the ISP grant. The report should address > the accomplishments of the funded project and the benefits to > the IAI. Mid-term and final reports should be sent to: > > IAI Directorate > c/o INPE > Av. Astronautas 1758 > Sao Jose dos Campos, SP > Brasil > > Investigators failing to submit a Final Report will not be eligible for > further IAI support. > > Inquiries > > For further information on the IAI Initial Science Program or other IAI > activities, please contact: > > Dr. Paul Filmer > Telephone: (703) 306-1515 > Fax: (703) 306-0091 > E-mail: pfilmer@nsf.gov > > Dr. Ruben Lara Lara > Telephone: +52 (617) 45050 ext. 2011 > Fax: + 52 (617) 44880 > E-mail: rlara@cicese.mx > > Ms. Katie Mastriani > Telephone: (703) 306-1517 > Fax: (703) 306-0091 > E-mail: kmastria@nsf.gov > > > COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE IAI > INITIAL SCIENCE PROGRAM > > Name of Organization: > > > Address: > > > > > > Principal Investigator (PI) Name and Title: > > > Please specify theme: > ( Tropical Ecosytems and Biogeochemical Cycles > ( Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity > ( El Nino-Southern Oscillation and Inter-annual Climate Variability > ( Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Interactions in the Inter-Tropical Americas > ( Comparative Studies of Oceanic, Coastal, and Estuarine Processes in Temperate Zones > ( Comparative Temperate Terrestrial Ecosystems > ( High Latitude Process > ( Cross-Cutting Theme (please specify) > _______________________________ > > Title of Proposed Project: > > Requested Amount (in U.S. Dollars):______________ > Proposed Duration (1-36 months):_____ > > Requested Starting Date: _________________________ > > Names (Typed) > Telephone Number > Fax Number > E-mail Address > Signatures and Date PI: > > Co-PI: > > Co-PI: > > Co-PI: > > Authorized Institutional Representative (Name and Title) > > > > BUDGET SUMMARY FOR PROPOSAL TO THE IAI > INITIAL SCIENCE PROGRAM > > > Organization: > > Principal Investigator: > > > Total Salary Support $ > Principal Investigator Salary $ > CO-PI Salary $ > CO-PI Salary $ > CO-PI Salary $ > Other Senior Personnel Salary $ > Post Doctoral Associates Support$ > Graduate Student Support $ > Other $ > Travel $ > Workshop Support $ > Total Permanent Equipment $ > (List item and dollar amount for each item over $1,000 U.S.) > > > Software $ > Networking Costs $ > Communications $ > Materials and Supplies $ > Publication Costs/ > Documentation/Dissemination $ > Computer Services $ > TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ > Indirect Costs $ > > TOTAL REQUEST $ > > PI Signature and Date: > > Institutional Representative > Signature and Date: > > > The IAI ISP will provide support for computers, workstations and other related > equipment, but not for major equipment or instrumentation. > ------ end of iaiisp.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ > > From ROBERTSON@kbs.msu.edu Mon Aug 7 09:46:48 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17053; Mon, 7 Aug 95 09:46:47 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab03060; 7 Aug 95 9:46 EDT Received: from kbs.msu.edu (xerxes.kbs.msu.edu) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15976; Mon, 7 Aug 95 06:43:16 PDT Received: from kbs.msu.edu by kbs.msu.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #6425) id <01HTSCLVS2J494DTKJ@kbs.msu.edu>; Mon, 07 Aug 1995 09:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 09:41:42 -0400 (EDT) From: ROBERTSON@kbs.msu.edu Subject: FWD: Open Meeting on the IGBP Northern Eurasia Study To: pi@lternet.edu Message-Id: <01HTSCLVS2J694DTKJ@kbs.msu.edu> Organization: MICHIGAN STATE UNVERSITY Organization: W.K. Kellogg Biological Station X-Vms-To: in%"pi@lternet.edu" X-Vms-Cc: ROBERTSON Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: OR From: IN%"pszenny@MIT.EDU" 20-JUL-1995 12:46 To: IN%"akimothj@tansei.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp", IN%"moa@diane.mpch- mainz.mpg.de", IN%"atlas@acd.ucar.edu", IN%"gpa@dar.csiro.au", IN%"lbarrie@dowsv01.dow.on.doe.CA", IN%"bates@pmel.noaa.gov", IN%"brasseur@ncar.ucar.edu", IN%"wcham@eas.gatech.edu", IN%"tom.chou CC: Subj: Open Meeting on the IGBP Northern Eurasia Study Return-path: Received: from MIT.EDU (MIT.MIT.EDU) by kbs.msu.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #6425) id <01HT3DSGJDJK8Y5E44@kbs.msu.edu>; Thu, 20 Jul 1995 12:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IGAC-CPO.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA06934; Thu, 20 Jul 95 12:31:26 EDT Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 12:33:37 -0500 (EST) From: pszenny@MIT.EDU (Alex Pszenny) Subject: Open Meeting on the IGBP Northern Eurasia Study To: akimothj@tansei.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp, moa@diane.mpch-mainz.mpg.de, atlas@acd.ucar.edu, gpa@dar.csiro.au, lbarrie@dowsv01.dow.on.doe.CA, bates@pmel.noaa.gov, brasseur@ncar.ucar.edu, wcham@eas.gatech.edu, tom.choularton@nessie.mcc.ac.uk, s_cieslik@jrc.it, conrad@Papin.HRZ.Uni-Marburg.DE, air@mpch-mainz.mpg.d400.de, delr@aero.ups-tlse.fr, delmas@alaska.grenet.fr, kld@atmos.albany.edu, fcf@al.noaa.gov, pjf@dar.csiro.au, ieg@dar.csiro.au, teg@allwise.att.com, jlg@dar.csiro.au, deanhegg@atmos.washington.edu, jost@tropos.de, phobbs@atmos.washington.edu, huebert@okika.soest.hawaii.edu, isidorov@eco-chem.pu.ru, cdkeeling@ucsd.edu, 3950184@mcimail.com, lacjp@aero.obs-mip.fr, j.s.levine@larc.nasa.gov, matrai@phyto.bigelow.org, pamatson@nature.berkeley.edu, m.p.mccormick@larc.nasa.gov, john-milton.miller@itu.ch, vam@asrcss2.asrc.albany.edu, mohnen@ifu.fhg.de, teruyuki@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp, h.neue@cgnet.com, johno@cmdl.noaa.gov, n.owens@newcastle.ac.uk, m.penkett@uea.ac.uk, rprinn@MIT.EDU, reeburgh@uci.edu, robertson@kbs.msu.edu, rodhe@misu.su.se, esanhuez@ivic.ivic.ve, sass@ruf.rice.edu, seiler@ifu.fhg.de, slanina@ecn.nl, k.a.smith@ed.ac.uk, wmx@sgi50s.iap.ac.cn, wmx@lasgsgi4.iap.ac.cn Message-id: <9507201631.AA06934@MIT.EDU> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear Colleagues, Please pass the following call for papers to anyone else whom you think may be interested. Thanks. Cheers, --Alex. ********** CALL FOR PAPERS Open Meeting on the IGBP Northern Eurasia Study Tsukuba, Japan, 28 November - 1 December 1995 The Environment Agency of Japan, the Japanese National Institute for Environmental Studies, and the IGBP are sponsoring an open meeting on the proposed IGBP Northern Eurasia Study. The unifying theme of the Study is the terrestrial carbon cycle in the Northern Eurasian region. The Study's most important overall objective is to determine how this cycle will be affected by global change, and how the consequent alterations to the cycle will feed back to further change. The objectives of the Open Meeting are: (i) to introduce the prospectus for the Study, developed at an initial planning workshop held in Stockholm in November 1994, to the broader scientific community, and (ii) to get input from the broader community to improve and refine the science plan as outlined in the prospectus. We invite papers from interested scientists to be presented at the Open Meeting. The four major themes of the meeting (relating to Northern Eurasia) are: * water, energy and carbon exchange * trace gas emissions * ecosystem studies: impacts and feedbacks * land-use/cover change The papers should focus on the interactions and cross-links between these themes, and should address an aspect of the overall goal of the Study. Abstracts should be one page or less in length, and should include a contact name, postal and email addresses, and telephone and fax numbers. Abstracts should be sent to: Dr Gen Inoue Head of Global Warming Research Team National Institute for Environmental Studies Japan Environment Agency 16-2, Onogawa Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305 JAPAN Tel: 81-298-51-6111 Fax: 81-298-51-4732 Email: inouegen@nies.go.jp DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF ABSTRACTS IS 20 OCTOBER 1995 From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Aug 7 10:04:17 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17117; Mon, 7 Aug 95 10:04:14 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06840; 7 Aug 95 10:04 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16366; Mon, 7 Aug 95 07:01:16 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04417; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 08:00:07 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00950; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 07:53:51 -0600 Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 07:53:48 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: funding opportunities for Women Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ------ begin of nsf95113.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ Title : NSF 95-113 NSF Visiting Professorships for Women Type : Program Guideline NSF Org: EHR Date : July 31, 1995 File : nsf95113 ********************************************************** ***NOTE File NSF95113.zip contains Forms in post script format for this Guideline.**************************************** *********************************************************** NSF VISITING PROFESSORSHIPS FOR WOMEN PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT AND GUIDELINES Applications must be postmarked by November 15 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 (inside front cover) The Foundation provides awards for research and education activities in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and research-related programs described in this document. In accordance with Federal statues and regulations and NSF policies, no persons on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. NSF has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability which enables individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Information Center for information relating to NSF programs, employment, or general information. This number is 703-306-0090. This program is described in the catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance category 47.076, Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provides funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on an NSF project. See the program announcement, or contact the program coordinator in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................ OBJECTIVES AND TARGET AUDIENCE.............................. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION......................................... INTERACTIVE ACTIVITIES...................................... INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES................................. PERFORMANCE MEASURES........................................ ELIGIBILITY................................................. PROPOSAL INITIATION......................................... SUBMISSION DEADLINE ........................................ PROPOSAL REVIEW............................................. PROPOSAL PREPARATION........................................ COST SHARING................................................ PROPOSAL SUBMISSION......................................... AWARD ANNOUNCEMENT AND RECOGNITION.......................... AWARD ADMINISTRATION........................................ INQUIRIES.................................................. APPENDICES CHECKLIST FOR PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (APPENDIX 1)........... PROPOSAL COVER SHEET (APPENDIX 2)........................ COMMITMENT OF HOST INSTITUTION (APPENDIX 3).............. APPLICANT INFORMATION SHEET (APPENDIX 4)................. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 Program Announcement NSF VISITING PROFESSORSHIPS FOR WOMEN INTRODUCTION The National Science Foundation's mandate to ensure the vitality of the nation's scientific enterprise includes concern for the quality, distribution, and effectiveness of the human resource base in science and engineering. The Foundation seeks to encourage full utilization of all highly qualified scientists and engineers. Since women are underrepresented in nearly all science and engineering disciplines, the Foundation supports efforts aimed at increasing the numbers of women as full participants in the mainstream of the nation's research enterprise. The Visiting Professorships for Women Program is one of these efforts. Effective in FY 1995, the Visiting Professorships for Women (VPW) Program is located in the Division of Human Resource Development (HRD) in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). The VPW program is an integral component of both the EHR Directorate and the HRD Division. EHR is responsible for the nation's health in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education and provides leadership to improve education in these areas. Implicit in the goals of EHR is the effort to improve gender representation at all educational levels. Activities of the Division of Human Resource Development contribute to the objectives of the EHR Directorate by influencing the development of institutional and disciplinary leaders in teaching and research. Recognition and support programs target both students and young faculty. The VPW program enables doctoral women scientists and engineers to undertake research and teaching at host institutions where they can advance their careers and provide guidance and encouragement to young women seeking to pursue research careers. The Foundation is particularly interested in increasing the participation of minority women and women with disabilities. Proposals from members of these groups are especially solicited. OBJECTIVES AND TARGET AUDIENCE The NSF Visiting Professorships for Women Program addresses the need to develop full use of the nation's human resources for science and technology. The objectives of the program are: o To provide opportunities for further career advancement and professional growth of outstanding women in engineering and in the disciplines of science supported by NSF; o To encourage female students to pursue careers in science and engineering by providing greater visibility for women scientists and engineers in industry, government, and academic institutions; and o To strengthen home institutions by providing professional development opportunities for science and engineering faculty and those in research positions. These objectives are furthered by awarding grants to enable women scientists and engineers experienced in independent research and employed in a field of science or engineering to serve as visiting professors at academic institutions in the United States, its possessions and territories. The VPW program is targeted at women scientists and engineers who currently (1) hold non-tenured academic or industrial positions, (2) hold academic, tenured or tenure-track positions below full professor, or (3) are senior scientists or engineers with demonstrated teaching and research excellence. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Visiting Professorships for Women Program increases the awareness of students and faculty, male and female, of the contribution of women scientists to the nation's scientific effort. It provides an opportunity for women scientists and engineers to undertake major research at a host institution. And, it increases the visibility of active women scientists in the academic environment of the host institution and encourages other women to pursue careers in science and engineering. The research proposed must be in a field supported by the National Science Foundation and may be conducted independently or in collaboration with others.1 Approximately 70 percent of the award period must be spent on research activities. In keeping with program objectives, periods of time spent away from the campus for field research or similar activities should be limited. Approximately 30 percent of the award period must be spent on teaching and other interactive activities designed to increase the visibility of women faculty in the sciences or engineering at either the graduate or undergraduate levels (see the following section on Interactive Activities). A portion of these activities may also be directed to the community at large. The VPW award support period may not be less than six months or more than 15 months. The maximum award tenure of 15 months may provide support for one academic year and two summers. Proposals that focus primarily on research only, without substantial attention to interactive activities, should be submitted to the regular discipline-oriented programs of the NSF without reference to the VPW program. For more information, see the section on Proposal Preparation, page ---. INTERACTIVE ACTIVITIES Interactive activities are critical to the success of a VPW proposal. They should promote professional growth and be planned and developed in conjunction with the host institution. A wide range of imagination and initiative is encouraged to bring the potential VPW grantee into contact with both students and faculty in the science and/or engineering pipeline. An applicant should propose to carry out at least two types of interactive activities. Teaching a course, usually at the graduate level, is mandatory for at least one semester. Ideally, the course should be in an area in which the host institution has no current expertise. Another interactive activity must be developed for the alternate semester. Examples of this activity are: (1) it may be related to the applicant's research area and involve a field trip or a series of field trips to a specific site or sites for purposes of observation and data collection; (2) it can involve conceptualizing and leading a workshop(s) or a seminar series, and be field-related or directed towards increasing the general involvement of women in science and/or engineering; and (3) the applicant can propose to teach a second course at either the graduate or undergraduate level. Applicants are encouraged to develop other creative forums for interacting with students and colleagues, either by themselves or in groups. In developing a full set of interactive activities, an applicant's goal should be to maximize her visibility at the host institution. Interactive activities should also include counseling and mentoring students and attending faculty meetings. INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES As an integral component of its overall mission, the NSF encourages U.S. participation in international science and engineering activities that promise substantial benefits to the research and education enterprises. These benefits may include, for example, access to unique research equipment and facilities in other parts of the world, and opportunities to collaborate with outstanding foreign researchers. A cooperative arrangement between the VPW Program and NSF's Division of International Programs provides support for VPW applicants to undertake international collaborative research projects. Types of international activities eligible for consideration include planning visits, cooperative research, and joint seminars and workshops. International activities may be carried out during or in addition to the VPW award period. Requirements to apply for an international supplement are: a two-page description of the proposed international research/activities; a separate budget and budget justification; and, when a foreign institutional arrangement is involved, a letter of invitation from the department chair or equivalent of that institution. PERFORMANCE MEASURES In common with all NSF activities, the VPW program is evaluated periodically for its effectiveness in achieving program objectives. Specific performance measures that serve as the basis for this program evaluation include: o Achievement of appointment to a tenure-track academic position, granting of tenure, or promotion to full professor; o Awards, both internal and external, in recognition of teaching or research excellence, or in recognition of other forms of professional achievement; o Publication rates in refereed journals, and indices of publication quality; o Research proposal success rates in national competitions; o Evidence of success in teaching and mentoring students, in educational leadership, and achievement of high visibility as a woman scientist and role model; and o Leadership positions in professional societies or community organizations as a consequence of professional excellence. VPW grantees can expect to be surveyed periodically concerning their progress with respect to these measures. ELIGIBILITY To be eligible to compete in this program an applicant must: o Hold a doctorate in a field of research supported by NSF. In exceptional circumstances, experience equivalent to the Ph.D. degree will be accepted. o Be currently employed in a U.S. academic institution, industry, or non-profit laboratory and planning to return to that place of employment. Employees of Federal agencies are not eligible. If the home institution is an academic one, applicants should indicate whether or not they plan to be on sabbatical leave and are, therefore, requesting only a portion of their salary. o Not have a salaried position, or the promise of one, with the proposed host institution, nor be receiving funds as a principal investigator or co-principal investigator from a federal research grant distributed through that institution, as of November 15 of the year during which application is made. o Be a U.S. citizen, national, or permanent resident as of November 15 of the year during which application is made. PROPOSAL INITIATION Applicants submit proposals as individuals through their host institution. The host institution's official authorization is required, and awards are made to the host institution. Candidates may initiate contact with prospective host institutions, or institutions may invite eligible candidates to apply to VPW. The applicant, together with the host institution, is responsible for developing plans and arranging for a fully-developed independent research project, which may involve collaboration with a scientist at the host institution, and participation in instructional and other interactive activities at the host institution. SUBMISSION DEADLINE Proposals must be postmarked no later than November 15 of the fiscal year during which application is made. It is the applicant's responsibility to take whatever actions are necessary to meet this deadline. The official application must have the original signatures of the applicant and the host institution's authorized organizational representative. PROPOSAL REVIEW Applicants are invited to identify possible mail reviewers who might assist in evaluating the research component of their VPW proposals. Their names and current locations should be sent to the VPW Program Director in a letter clipped to the original signature copy of the VPW proposal. Potential reviewers should be known researchers who are located at institutions other than the applicant's home or host institutions. VPW proposals will be reviewed in accordance with the Foundation's merit review procedures and in cooperation with the relevant disciplinary program(s) at NSF. Standard NSF evaluation criteria emphasized in the mail review of the research component by disciplinary specialists are: o Research performance competence - Capability of the investigator, the technical soundness of the proposed approach, and the adequacy of the institutional resources available, including comments on the proposer's recent research performance. o Intrinsic merit of the research - Likelihood that research will lead to new discoveries or fundamental advances within its field of science or engineering, or have substantial impact on progress in that field or in other scientific and engineering fields. o Utility or relevance of the research - Likelihood that the research can contribute to the achievement of a goal that is extrinsic or in addition to that of the research field itself, and thereby serve as the basis for new or improved technology or assist in the solution of societal problems. o Effect of the research on the infrastructure of science and engineering - Potential of the proposed research to contribute to better understanding or improvement of the quality, distribution, or effectiveness of the nation's scientific and engineering research, education, and manpower base. At the conclusion of the mail review, a multidisciplinary panel of scientists and engineers will be convened at the Foundation. The purpose of the panel is to provide guidance to the VPW Program Director in making award selections from among proposals which received the highest overall research ratings. For each proposal, the panel will evaluate: the interactive plan and the proposal's research reviews, the applicant's potential for achieving performance objectives, the statement of the home institution's department chairperson, and the fit between VPW program objectives and the target pool. As a result of its deliberations, the panel will make a recommendation to the VPW program for funding with high priority, funding if money is available, or declination. Final funding decisions will be made by the National Science Foundation. In making selections, secondary criteria such as distribution among disciplines, racial and ethnic affiliation, geographic areas and types of institutions may be considered. PROPOSAL PREPARATION The NSF publication entitled Grant Proposal Guide, GPG (NSF 94- 2), provides a detailed description of proposal preparation, research evaluation criteria, and proposal processing. All proposals should be prepared in accordance with the instructions described in GPG, except as modified in this brochure. GPG may be obtained without charge from: Forms and Publications Unit, Room P-15 National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 GPG may also be ordered by telephone at 703-306-1130, or it may be ordered electronically via pubs@nsf.gov (Internet). In your request, be sure to include the publication number and title, your name, and a complete mailing address. VPW proposals must conform to NSF proposal submission requirements. See GPG and the instructions below for more details. Fifteen copies of the proposal, including an original signed copy, should be submitted to NSF. Proposals should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner, but otherwise unbound, with pages numbered at the bottom and 2.5 cm margins at the top, bottom and on each side, in type no smaller than 10 point. Page limitations are indicated in Appendix 1. The original signed copy should be printed only on one side of each sheet. Additional copies may be printed on both sides. Appendix 1 lists the items that must be included in a VPW proposal and the sequence in which they should appear. Copies of the required forms not found in GPG are also provided in the apppendixes. Missing items will preclude proposal evaluation. A proposal must contain the following items: o Information About Principal Investigators -- NSF Form 1225 (see GPG, Proposal Forms Kit). This form should be clipped to the cover sheet of the original signature copy. o NSF VPW Cover Sheet (see page --). The cover sheet, which consists of both front and back, should list the applicant's name as the "PI/PD" (principal investigator/project director).2 In indicating the disciplinary program(s) of NSF most relevant to the proposed research, the applicant should consult the list in GPG. (This information is used to help identify qualified scientists for merit review.) All blocks on the cover sheet are to be filled in except for original signatures, which are required only on the original copy. Note that the host institution's authorized organizational representative is usually the grants and contracts official. o Certification (see page --, on reverse side of Cover Sheet) o Commitment of Host Institution (see page --). A sheet is provided for a statement to be completed and signed by the department head or equivalent official at the host institution, indicating (1) a commitment for research space and facilities for the award duration; (2) assurance that the investigator will be able to devote approximately 70 percent of the award period to her research and 30 percent to teaching and other interactive activities; (3) assurance that the visiting professor will be treated as a faculty member and be granted authority to conduct her project in accordance with her best judgement, consistent with the institution's grant administration policies; and (4) indication that the institution is aware that NSF invites VPW cost-sharing. o Letter of Support from Home Institution, written by the applicant's department chairperson or equivalent. This letter should include a description of the impact this professional growth experience is expected to have on the home institution. o Federal Employee Statement, if applicable. A Federal employee must consult with an appropriate ethics official at her agency about the proposed VPW submission. In the proposal, the employee must include: (1) the ethics official's written statement indicating that he/she has no objection to the applicant's proposal submission or to her participation in the VPW program; and (2) written commitment of the provision of salary by the agency during the award period, or written documentation from the agency that the employee will be granted leave-without-pay status for the award period during which salary is provided by the grant. o Table of Contents Sheet, with page numbers indicated (see GPG, page 5, and NSF Form 1359 in the Proposal Forms Kit). o Project Summary. The summary should include a 200-word, self-contained description of (1) the research that would result if the proposal is funded by NSF, and (2) the interactive activities that would be carried out. The summary should be written in the third person and include a statement of the research objectives, methods to be employed, and significance of the proposed activity to the advancement of knowledge. It should be informative to other persons in the same or related fields and, insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically literate lay reader. The interactive summary should include a statement of interactive activities, i.e., the course to be taught, seminars to be led, etc.. o Research Project Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support), limited to 15 pages (see GPG, page 5). o Interactive Activities Description, limited to five pages (see page --). o Selection of the Host Institution, limited to one page, is an important aspect of a VPW proposal. The proposer should describe her reasons for selecting the institution, including (a) the availability of facilities and/or equipment; (b) collegial relationships helpful in carrying out the proposed activities; (c) the institution's and department's graduate and undergraduate enrollment; and (d) the number and proportion of both tenured and tenure-track women faculty in the host department. o Bibliography of pertinent literature (see GPG, page 6). o VPW Applicant Information Sheet (see page --). This sheet may be useful to the applicant in determining her own eligibility for the program, but primarily provides readily accessible, concise information to the NSF staff and to the evaluation panel. o Biographical Sketch(es), of applicant and of faculty sponsor, if any (see GPG, page 6). o Budget -- NSF Form 1030 (for budget information see GPG, pages 6 through 10, and NSF Form 1030 in the Proposal Forms Kit). Funds may be requested to defray salary (based on the home institution salary), travel, relocation costs (not to exceed $3,000), and research support. The budget should include a line item for two two-day trips to Washington, DC (see section on Awardee Recognition below). For these trips, per diem should be requested in accordance with institutional policies, or in the absence of such policies, at the current Federal rate for Washington, DC. The host institution's indirect cost rate may be obtained from that institution's grants and contracts office/ official. Host institutions should attempt to assure that a VPW applicant will be able to continue to receive the same fringe benefits (such as health insurance, retirement contributions, and Social Security coverage) that they received at their home institutions. Since fringe benefit policies can vary from institution to institution, applicants are encouraged to negotiate an academic title with the host institution that will confer appropriate fringe benefit levels during their tenure at that institution. An alternate method of ensuring the availability of continuous fringe benefits, especially retirement and medical coverage, involves a possible arrangement by the applicant to remain a full time employee of her home institution, with salary and fringe benefits reimbursed appropriately by the NSF award at the host institution. Requests for the purchase or rental of research equipment will not normally be allowed under VPW. However, the purchase or rental of special equipment to facilitate participation by women with disabilities is allowable. Applicants with disabilities should contact the VPW Program Director for details. Funds may be requested for salaries and wages for research assistants or support personnel, but not for faculty collaborators. If the project period covers more than 12 months, there must be a summary budget sheet, plus a budget sheet for each 12-month period or fraction thereof. Summer salary for faculty members on academic-year appointments will not be funded for more than two-ninths of their regular academic-year salary. This total includes summer salary received from all NSF-funded grants. Exceptions to this limitation are permitted only in unusual cases, which must be fully justified in the proposal. o Cost Sharing. The amount that the institution is willing to commit to cost sharing should be indicated on line M of the Summary Proposal Budget, NSF Form 1030. o Budget Justification, is a brief justification of major budget items to be provided by the applicant. o International Activities. This description is limited to two pages and should include an overview of the activity(ies) planned and a brief description of the site. A letter of invitation from the department chair, or equivalent, of the foreign institution is required. o International Activities Budget, should be itemized on a separate NSF Form 1030. To assist in developing an international activities budget, use the NSF publication titled "International Opportunities for Scientists and Engineers," NSF 95-88 (also available on STIS). In the section titled "Budgetary Approach," it is stated that allowable costs include transportation, subsistence, expendable materials and supplies, and publication charges. Note that salary is not an allowable cost for the international activities component. The international activity budget should not be combined with the VPW budget. o International Budget Justification, should be attached to the International Budget. o Current and Pending Support -- NSF Form 1239 in the Proposal Forms Kit (also, see GPG, page 9). o Appendices. Appendices should be used judiciously and include only the most pertinent materials. Voluminous appendices, including extensive published papers, cannot be reviewed in the time available and will be discarded by NSF prior to review. Proposals should be checked carefully for completeness to ensure that reviewers have all essential information. COST SHARING VPW grants are subject to the normal NSF cost sharing requirements for research projects (NSF Grant Policy Manual, paragraph 643). However, as evidence of its commitment to the objectives of the award, the host institution is encouraged to contribute to the direct costs of this project above and beyond the normal NSF cost sharing requirement. The home institution, which will ultimately benefit from its staff member's activities, is also encouraged to contribute to the project's costs. Cost sharing by home institutions may be a factor in the selection of proposals recommended for funding. If cost sharing is offered, it will become a requirement under the award in the amount proposed. As stated above in the "Proposal Preparation" section, Line M of the approved award budget must reflect any required specific cost sharing above the minimum one percent. All cost sharing amounts are subject to audit. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION Fifteen (15) copies of the proposal, including one copy with original signatures, should be sent to: National Science Foundation Proposal Processing - Room P60 Announcement No: NSF 9X-XX 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 Proposals postmarked later than November 15 will be returned. AWARD ANNOUNCEMENT AND RECOGNITION VPW awards will be announced by June 15 of the year following application. Awards may start as early as July 1 of that year and must be completed within 24 months. If an international supplement is included in the VPW award, the award period will be extended as appropriate. In FY 1996, approximately 25 awards will be made with an average award size of $125,000. Public announcement of the awards will be made in the form of releases to the press and to public information officers of both host and home institutions after the individual recipients have been notified. In addition, the Director of the National Science Foundation will send letters to the presidents of both the host and home institutions informing them of the award. The VPW awardees will be invited to meet each other and NSF staff members at a two-day meeting at the National Science Foundation. The first meeting will be held in late September or early October, after the award announcements have been made. Awardees will be invited to return for a second meeting the following year to share information about their experiences at the host institution. AWARD ADMINISTRATION Awards will be funded through grants to the host institutions. They will be administered in accordance with either NSF Grant General Conditions (GC-1), or the Federal Demonstration Project General Terms and Conditions (FDP-II) with financial reporting to NSF done by the institution. Copies of these documents are available from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit. Applicants submitting successful proposals will be regarded by NSF as the principal investigators. It is understood that some institutions require that a regular faculty member be named as the person responsible for administering grant funds. In such cases, this person's name should be listed on the cover sheet as the "Host Institution Sponsor." In keeping with the spirit of the program, however, the visiting professor should be treated as a regular member of the faculty during the period of her visit and must be granted authority to conduct her project in accordance with her best judgment, consistent with the institution's grant administration policies. Any change in scope from the proposed project plans must be approved in advance by the VPW Program Director and appropriate grants officer. Upon completion of the project, a Final Project Report (NSF Form 98A) is required (see GPG, Appendix F, page 37). Applicants should review this form prior to proposal submission so that appropriate tracking mechanisms are included in the proposal plan to ensure that complete information will be available at the conclusion of the project. INQUIRIES Inquiries regarding this announcement may be made to the: VPW Program Director Room 815 National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 The VPW Program Director may also be reached by telephone at 703- 306-1637, by electronic mail at "vpw@nsf.gov", and by FAX at 703- 306-0423. Inquiries relating to the scientific area of the research should be directed to the NSF program officer who works in the specific discipline. A directory of Foundation programs providing scientific research support may be found in GPG, or in the NSF brochure entitled Guide to Programs, (NSF 94-91). Both GPG and Guide to Programs are available in the research offices of most institutions, or without charge from NSF's Forms and Publications Unit (see inside back cover). Publications may also be ordered electronically: pubs@nsf.gov (Internet). In your request, include the NSF publication number and title, your name, and a complete mailing address. ------------ 1. NSF will not normally support research on the etiology, diagnosis, or treatment of physical or mental disease, abnormality, or malfunction in human beings or animals. Animal models of such conditions, the development and testing of drugs, or other procedures for their treatment also generally are not eligible for Foundation support. NSF policy normally precludes support for technical assistance, pilot plant efforts, research requiring security classification, the development of products for commercial marketing, or market research for a particular product or invention. If an investigator is uncertain as to whether her proposed research could be funded by the Foundation, she should contact the VPW Program Director. 2. For institutions requiring that a regular faculty member serve as the person responsible for administering grant funds, see section on "Award Administration." (inside back cover) Electronic Dissemination You can get information through STIS (Science and Technology Information System), NSF's online publishing system, described in NSF 94-4, the "STIS flyer." To get a paper copy of the flyer, or any other publication mentioned in this announcement, call the NSF Publications Section at 703-306-1130. To get an electronic copy of the "STIS flyer," send an E-mail message to stisfly@nsf.gov (Internet). Ordering by Electronic Mail If you are a user of electronic mail and have access to Internet, you may order publications electronically. The address is pubs@nsf.gov for Internet users. In your requests, include the NSF publication number and title, your name and a complete mailing address. Publications should be received within three weeks after placement of your order. PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS The information requested on proposal forms is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process; to applicant institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the application review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers as necessary to complete assigned work; and to other government agencies in order to coordinate programs. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 3, 1995), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 59 Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Herman G. Fleming Reports Clearance Officer Contracts, Policy, and Oversight National Science Foundation Arlington, VA 22230 APPENDIX 1 CHECKLIST FOR PROPOSAL SUBMISSION NSF Visiting Professorships for Women 1. Information About Principal Investigators -- NSF Form 1225 (see GPG, NSF 94-) 2. NSF VPW Cover Sheet and Certification Page -- NSF Form 1207 (see Appendix 2)* 3. Commitment of Host Institution -- NSF Form 1312 (see Appendix 3) 4. Federal Employee Statement, if applicable 5. Letter of Support from Chairperson, or Equivalent, of Home Institution 6. Table of Contents (limited to one page) 7. Project Summary (limited to 200 words) 8. Research Project Description, including Results from Prior NSF Support (limited to 15 pages) 9. Interactive Activities Description (limited to 5 pages) 10. Selection of the Host Institution (limited to 1 page) 11. Bibliography (see GPG) 12. VPW Applicant Information Sheet -- NSF Form 1313 (see Appendix 4) 13. Biographical Sketch (see GPG) 14. Budget -- NSF Form 1030 (see GPG) 15. Budget Justification 16. International Activities Description, if any (limited to 2 pages) 17. Budget for International Activities -- NSF Form 1030 (see GPG) 18. Budget Justification for International Activities 19. Letter of Support from Foreign Institution Department Chair or Equivalent, when appropriate 20. Current and Pending Support -- NSF Form 1239 (see GPG) 21. Appendices OPTIONAL: Clip names and addresses of possible reviewers to the cover sheet of the original signature copy of the proposal. *Cover sheet of the original must be signed by the applicant and by the authorized grants officer of the proposed host institution; cover sheets for the remaining 14 copies may be photocopied. Some forms are missing from this electronic version, see printed version of publications for missing forms. OMB 3145-0058 PT 34 KW: 0400000 0600000 1000000 1010000 1004000 NSF 94-113 (Replaces NSF 94-68) ------ end of nsf95113.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Aug 7 10:04:20 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17121; Mon, 7 Aug 95 10:04:17 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06858; 7 Aug 95 10:04 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16448; Mon, 7 Aug 95 07:01:55 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04428; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 08:00:47 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00956; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 07:54:31 -0600 Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 07:54:28 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: funding opportunities for young scientists Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ------ begin of nsf95118.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ Title : NSF95-118 - Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program Type : Program Guideline NSF Org: CROSS-DIRECTORATE Date : July 31, 1995 File : nsf95118 Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program Guidelines PURPOSE The National Science Foundation (NSF) strongly encourages the early development of academic faculty as both educators and researchers. The Foundation-wide Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program supports junior faculty within the context of their overall career development. It combines in a single program the support of quality research and education in the broadest sense and the full participation of those traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering. This program enhances and emphasizes the importance the Foundation places on the development of full, integrated academic careers which include both research and education. ELIGIBILITY Junior faculty who intend to develop academic careers involving both research and education may apply under the CAREER program. CAREER awards are not normally appropriate for senior or highly experienced investigators. To be eligible for a CAREER award, applicants MUST MEET ALL of the following requirements, unless written approval is given for the exceptions noted below: o be employed at an institution in the U.S., its territories or possessions, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which awards a baccalaureate or advanced degree in a field supported by the NSF; o be in their first or second full-time tenure-track or equivalent1/ academic appointment at any institution and have begun the first appointment on or after July 1, 1991 and before the CAREER application deadline; _____________________ 1/ Equivalency refers to continuing faculty appointments at institutions/departments that do not offer tenure, as well as continuing research appointments having substantial education responsibilities. o not hold or have held tenure on or before the program application deadline; o not be a current or former recipient of a Presidential or NSF Young Investigator, Presidential Faculty Fellow, or CAREER award. Prior or concurrent Federal support for other types of awards or for non-duplicative research does not preclude eligibility. In the following cases, written approval for exception to these requirements must be obtained from the cognizant NSF program director prior to proposal submission, and submitted with the proposal (original copy only): o Individuals who are engaged in significant education and research activities at two-year colleges or non-profit or non- academic institutions such as museums, observatories, and research laboratories; o Non-tenured faculty whose initial full-time tenure-track appointment preceded July 1, 1991, but whose careers have been interrupted for substantive reasons such as family leave or serious health problems. Only individual investigator proposals will be accepted, although research projects may be collaborative. Eligible faculty may apply for either a CAREER award or a traditional NSF research grant. Because of the nature of their research appointments, some faculty may find it preferable to apply for traditional individual or group research grants rather than CAREER awards. NSF will not simultaneously consider a CAREER proposal and a traditional proposal for the same research. An applicant may have only one CAREER proposal under consideration by NSF at any time and may receive only one CAREER award. NSF will not support through a CAREER award research activities that are currently supported from other sources. PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS The CAREER program is a Foundation-wide activity that provides flexibility to accommodate differences among the many fields of research and education in the natural sciences, social and behavioral sciences, mathematics, and engineering, as well as science, engineering, and mathematics education. The program fosters integration of the research and education components of a faculty career. The program emphasizes the full participation of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities; proposals from members of these groups are encouraged. A guiding principle of the CAREER program is that proposals from CAREER-eligible faculty will compete directly with proposals from other CAREER-eligible faculty in the same discipline. Directions for Submission. Applicants should obtain NSF's Guide to Programs (NSF 94-91 or its replacement) in order to determine the match between their proposed research and education plans and NSF programs. The Guide to Programs can be obtained from the Forms and Publications Unit, NSF, Arlington, VA, 22230, or by electronic mail to pubs@nsf.gov (Internet). Applicants with questions concerning intellectual areas of support, discipline eligibility, or individual eligibility should contact the appropriate NSF program listed in Appendix A of the Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 95-27). Proposals that NSF determines to span more than one NSF program will be co-reviewed by the relevant programs. To accommodate the variety of needs and patterns of career development across disciplines, NSF directorates have some specific emphases. Prior to preparing a proposal for submission, refer to the information on pages 5-8 regarding the emphases of the relevant NSF directorate. A proposal submitted to a directorate that is more appropriate for another directorate will be reassigned. Proposals will not arbitrarily be returned due to late submission to the new program. Applicants will be notified by NSF of the reassignment. Collaborative Activities. Establishing collaborations with partners from other sectors, e.g., industry, national laboratories, or schools and school districts, is strongly encouraged (see page 3, item 13). Plans for international collaborations may be included in the application. Access to unique research equipment and facilities and the opportunity to collaborate with outstanding foreign researchers may provide substantial benefits to the research and education proposed. For additional information on the types of activities that are eligible for support in various countries, contact the Division of International Programs. Award Level and Duration. The duration of awards is at least 4 but no more than 5 years. Funding level and duration will be consistent with the scope of the project and NSF directorate and disciplinary practices, as described in directorate descriptions on pages 5-8. The total award, inclusive of administrative costs, will not be less than $200,000 for a four-year award or less than $250,000 for a five-year award. The intent is to provide stable support at a sufficient level and duration to enable awardees to achieve the education and research career development objectives of the program. Deadlines for Submission. CAREER proposals must be submitted by the following directorate deadlines: October 17, 1995: Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE) Education and Human Resources (EHR) (preproposals) Engineering (ENG) Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) December 15, 1995: Biological Sciences (BIO) Geosciences (GEO) Office of Polar Programs (OPP) Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Proposals must be received at NSF by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date. PROPOSAL PREPARATION Proposals must be prepared in accordance with "NSF Grant Proposal Guide" (GPG) and instructions in these guidelines, including relevant directorate emphases on pages 5-8. The GPG is currently under revision and should be available as NSF publication 95-27 about September 1, 1995. For purposes of proposal preparation, the existing version of the GPG, NSF 94-2, may be used, but the forms from the revised GPG are required for proposal submission. All forms specified below are available in GPG and must be used when specified in GPG. Appendix A, GPG, indicates the required number of copies of proposals including the original signed copy. The proposal format should follow the sequence: 1. Information about Principal Investigator (NSF Form 1225) (with original copy only). 2. Cover Sheet (NSF Form 1207) (page 1-all copies; pages 1 and 2- original copy only). In the block "For Consideration by NSF Organizational Unit(s)," indicate the appropriate division abbreviation and 4-digit code shown on pages 5-8 of this announcement. Indicate the NSF program most closely associated with the proposed research activity (Refer to GPG, Appendix A). In the block "Program Announcement/ Solicitation No./ Closing Date," use "CAREER Program/NSF 95-118/ Program Deadline." No co-principal investigator can be listed. 3. List of suggested reviewers or reviewers not to include, optional (in original copy only) (Refer to GPG, Section II.B.1). 4. Deviation Authorization (original only) (if applicable). NSF approval for exemption from eligibility requirements must be included here. 5. Project Summary (NSF Form 1358). Not more than one page in length, including both education and research aspects of the proposal and their integration. 6. Table of Contents (NSF Form 1359). 7. Project Description and Results from Prior NSF Support, as indicated in GPG, Section II.D.4 (NSF Form 1360). This section consists of (a) a description of results from prior NSF support, if applicable; (b) a Career Development Plan; and (c) departmental endorsement. The section must not exceed 15 single-spaced pages, including any graphical and tabular materials. a. Results from Prior NSF Support. (Refer to GPG, Section II.D.4). b. Career Development Plan. This section should be a clear statement of the nature and implementation of the research and education activities proposed. Plans in both areas should be specific and directly related to the applicant's career goals and the goals of the institution. Applicants are encouraged to describe one or two planned education innovations that move beyond routine education and service responsibilities and to discuss the relationship between the research and education aspects as evidence of an integrated career development plan. This section should follow the standard NSF proposal format and present: o objectives and significance of the proposed research and education activities; o the relation of the research to the current state of knowledge in the field, and of the education innovation to the current state of knowledge on effective teaching and learning in one's discipline; o an outline of the general plan of work, including a description of the methods and procedures to be used; o a summary of prior research and education accomplishments; and o for proposals submitted to the Directorate for Engineering, a brief description of the impact of the proposed project (Refer to GPG, Section II.D. 12.d). ----------------------------------------------------------------- Examples of Areas of Education Innovation Education activities may be in a broad range of areas. They may address curriculum, pedagogy, outreach, or mentoring at any level, including graduate and undergraduate students, majors and non-majors, teacher preparation or enhancement, K-12 students, or the general public. Examples include, but are not limited to: o Course or curriculum development; o Pre-college teacher preparation and enhancement; o Outreach and mentoring activities to enhance scientific literacy or involve students from groups that have been traditionally underrepresented in science; o Research on pedagogy or students' learning and conceptual development in the discipline; o Incorporating research activities into undergraduate courses; o Inclusion of industrial, international, or cross-disciplinary activities; o Innovative evaluation and assessment methods. ------------------------------------------------------------------ c. Departmental Endorsement - At the end of the last page of the Project Description, two brief items must be included: official effective date of the applicant's first full-time tenure-track or equivalent appointment. a statement, "I have read and endorse this Career Development Plan." The statement must be signed by the applicant's department chair (or equivalent institutional official). Below the signature, type the date and the official's name and title. This signature attests to departmental endorsement of the Career Development Plan and the department's partnership in the applicant's career development. Department chairs may provide additional information describing the partnership in item 13. 8. References cited (NSF Form 1361). 9. Biographical Sketch (NSF Form 1362). Limited to two pages. 10. Budget (NSF Form 1030) (cumulative and annual budgets, including subcontract budgets, if any, and up to 3 pages of Budget Justification). No funds may be used to support the principal investigator's academic year salary unless justified by a plan for a limited period of field work or other extraordinary career development activity in research or education. No salary support for co-principal investigators or other senior personnel is allowed. In lieu of indirect costs, administrative costs for CAREER grants initially funded in FY 1996 are limited to 20% of the total award (or to normal indirect costs if that is less than 20% of the total award) for the first and all subsequent years of the grant. (Example: In a $50,000 budget in which the maximum amount of administrative costs is claimed, $10,000 would appear on line I. as indirect costs and all other line items would total $40,000, which would appear on line H.) Institutional negotiated indirect cost rates as normally calculated will apply to CAREER awards made in FY 1997 and thereafter. 11. Current and Pending Support (NSF Form 1239). 12. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources (NSF Form 1363). 13. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation. The department chair may provide a statement describing the department's partnership and the institutional commitment to support the research and education career development plan (maximum length, one page). The support could include, but is not limited to, provision of academic year salary, instrumentation, laboratory facilities, research support, or graduate student stipends. Other special information as specified in GPG, Section II.D.10. should be included, as appropriate. This includes supporting documentation concerning collaborations. NSF encourages, but does not require, organizations responding to this announcement to contribute to the costs of the project supported by NSF. While cost sharing will not be considered in evaluating proposals, cost sharing specified in the proposal will be referenced and included as a condition of any award resulting from this announcement. 14. Appendices may not be included unless a deviation has been authorized, according to the procedures described in GPG, section II.A. Proposal packages should be sent to: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION PPU Announcement No. NSF 95-118, CAREER PROGRAM 4201 WILSON BLVD. ROOM P60 ARLINGTON VA 22230 PROPOSAL REVIEW AND EVALUATION Merit evaluation of proposals will be carried out in the research directorates and divisions through mail review, panel review, or a combination of the two. Proposals from CAREER- eligible faculty will compete directly with proposals from other CAREER-eligible faculty in the same discipline. CAREER proposals will be reviewed in accordance with the four criteria established by the National Science Board as contained in the Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 95-27), Section III. Criterion 4, Effect on the Infrastructure of Science and Engineering, will receive greater weight than is customary for traditional research proposals because of the focus on academic career development including both research and education, and other directorate emphases described on pages 5-8. Emphasis will also be placed on full participation of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Annual progress reports, as described in GPG, Section VII.G.1., are required in connection with each continuing grant increment. These reports should summarize progress in both research and education development and, where appropriate, collaborative activities. The report should also include an update of other support. The report must be countersigned by the awardee's department head or equivalent, thereby reaffirming the department's endorsement of the work plan and partnership in the individual's career development. In addition to providing information for NSF staff review and monitoring of the career development progress of individual awardees, this information will be used in tracking the program for the purposes of evaluation and assessment. Supplementary information for this purpose may be requested from time to time. ADMINISTRATION OF GRANTS Grants awarded as a result of this announcement will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1 or FDP, Grant General Conditions. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit through the means described on page 2. More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (7/95) (NSF 95-26) for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Individuals may be nominated to the Presidential Faculty Fellows (PFF) program while a CAREER proposal is under consideration. However, a PFF award and a CAREER award cannot be held concurrently. In the event a PFF award is made while the CAREER proposal is pending, the CAREER proposal will be administratively withdrawn by NSF. Current recipients of awards under the Presidential Young Investigators (PYI), NSF Young Investigators (NYI) or CAREER programs who are selected for PFF awards may have the PYI or NYI or CAREER awards modified as appropriate, and their PFF awards will be limited in duration to the number of unused years on their PYI, NYI, or five-year CAREER awards. For CAREER awards initially awarded for fewer than five years, the duration of the PFF award will be limited to the period necessary to bring the total award period to five years. In no case, however, will the tenure of a PFF award be less than two years. Former PYIs or NYIs whose awards have expired after five years duration will receive a two-year duration PFF award. RELEVANT NSF PUBLICATIONS Research Planning Grants and Career Advancement Awards for Minority Scientists and Engineers, NSF 94-147. Research Planning Grants and Career Advancement Awards for Women Scientists and Engineers, NSF 93-130. Presidential Faculty Fellows Awards, NSF 94-134 (or its replacement). International Opportunities for Scientists and Engineers, NSF 95- 88. CAREER Program Information by Directorate On the proposal cover sheet, list the division abbreviation and 4- digit code to indicate the division which, in your opinion, best fits your research activities. This information will be used to expedite the initial distribution of the proposals, but NSF will make the final assignment. If, after you receive the acknowledgment card, you wish to discuss this assignment, please contact the disciplinary division indicated on the acknowledgment card. On the proposal cover sheet, also indicate the NSF program which, in your opinion, best fits your research activities. Lists of NSF programs for use in completing the proposal cover sheet are available in GPG, Appendix A. Information on many directorates, divisions, and programs is available on STIS and the World Wide Web. Refer to the inside front cover of this publication for instructions to access this information. General questions concerning the CAREER program may be directed to directorate contacts, where listed. More specific questions concerning proposal development should be directed to division contacts listed below or to the programs listed in GPG, Appendix A. Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) Division of Environmental Biology (DEB - 0801): 703-306-1480 CAREER Contact: Lisa Brooks lbrooks@nsf.gov 703-306-1481 Division of Molecular & Cellular Biosciences (MCB - 0807): 703-306-1440 CAREER Contact: Maryanna Henkart mhenkart@nsf.gov 703-306-1440 Division of Integrative Biology & Neuroscience (IBN - 0809): 703-306-1420 CAREER Contact: Kathie Olsen kolsen@nsf.gov 703-306-1420 Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE) Directorate Emphasis: CISE seeks to provide first awards for new investigators. Division of Computer & Computation Research (CCR - 0501): 703-306-1910 CAREER Contact: Caroline Wardle cwardle@nfs.gov 703-306-1910 Division of Information, Robotics, & Intelligent Systems (IRI - 0502): 703-306-1930 CAREER Contact: Howard Moraff hmoraff@nsf.gov 703-306-1928 Division of Advanced Scientific Computing (ASC - 0503): 703-306-1970 CAREER Contact: Richard Hirsh rhirsh@nsf.gov 703-306-1970 Division of Microelectronic Information Process Systems (MIP - 0504): 703-306-1940 CAREER Contact: John Lehmann jlehmann@nsf.gov 703-306-1940 Division of Networking & Communications Research & Infrastructure (NCR - 0505): 703-306-1950 CAREER Contact: Aubrey Bush abush@nsf.gov 703-306-1949 Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate Emphasis: Proposals submitted to the Directorate for Education and Human Resources must address an area of research and instructional scholarship that is supported by the EHR Division of Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination (RED). Research plans submitted to EHR should be oriented toward laying the conceptual foundations and expanding the knowledge base necessary to support the reform of science, mathematics, technology, and engineering education. Whereas activities such as software develoment, hardware development, laboratory equipment design, instructional materials development, teacher and informal education may be cited as part of one's education project, these activites do not satisfy the requirement for research in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education and, therefore, cannot be the basis for the research plan. For more information about RED programs listed below see NSF 93- 143. Information about RED programs can also be obtained from the World Wide Web: {http://red.www.nsf.gov/EHR/RED/} The Networking Infrastructure for Education program solicitation is contained in NSF 94-05 (revised). Applicants to the Research in Teaching and Learning program should obtain a copy of the program's Strategic Plan and Advice on Developing a Preliminary Proposal tipsheet either by calling the program or downloading it from the Web. RED programs require a preliminary proposal, with the exception of the Studies program which encourages preliminary proposals. Preliminary proposals should be 4-6 pages in length and should describe the essential features of the research and education projects with an emphasis on methodology. Preliminary proposals are accepted at any time throughout the year, but must be submitted no later than October 17, 1995. Electronic submission of preliminary proposals is encouraged by the NIE and AAT programs. The earlier a preliminary proposal is submitted, the more time program staff has to interact with prospective investigators and help them develop competitive proposals. If a program encourages submission of a full proposal, annual budgets should be for $50,000 in direct costs plus administrative costs up to the allowed limit. The deadline for submission of a full proposal can be obtained from the relevant program. Division of Research Evaluation and Dissemination (RED - 1105): 703-306-1650 Networking Infrastructure for Education (NIE) CAREER Contact: Nora Sabelli nsabelli@nsf.gov Application of Advanced Technology (AAT) CAREER Contact: Nora Sabelli nsabelli@nsf.gov Research in Teaching and Learning (RTL) CAREER Contact: Barbara Lovitts blovitts@nsf.gov Studies: CAREER Contact: Iris Rotberg irotberg@nsf.gov Indicators: CAREER Contact: Larry Suter lsuter@nsf.gov Evaluation Studies: CAREER Contact: Conrad Katzenmeyer ckatzenm@nsf.gov Directorate for Engineering (ENG) Directorate Emphasis: Special emphasis will be placed on developing collaborative research and education relationships and intellectual involvement with industry. It may be appropriate to include expenses related to the proposed collaboration in the budget request. Examples of such expenses are travel costs, support for faculty, graduate students or postdoctoral researchers for work at the collaborator's site or laboratory, and direct research expenses, usually to be shared with the collaborator. Proposal budgets should be submitted for $50,000 per year, with a cumulative budget. In addition, the Directorate for Engineering has two optional components for supplemental CAREER funds: industrial matching and equipment matching, as described below. Recipients of Research Initiation Awards (RIA) are eligible for the CAREER program but RIA funding concurrent with a CAREER award may be applied toward the CAREER minimum award size, at NSF discretion. Equipment Matching: NSF will consider a one-time request for up to $10,000 for the purchase of research equipment provided the institution contributes equal matching funds. The need for the equipment must be fully justified within the budget justification page(s) submitted with the budget request. Funds for equipment matching may be requested one time within the initial proposal submission or as a supplemental budget request in any of the award years. The 20% administrative allowance described on page 3, item 10, cannot be applied to the equipment request. Industrial Matching (Optional): Up to $25,000 annually will be made available retroactively for each year of the award to match support obtained during that year from eligible sources. The request should reflect the level of intellectural involvement between the awardee and the industrial partner. Only industrial support obtained after the proposal was officially submitted to NSF is eligible for matching. The ENG CAREER "Guidelines for Base and Matching Funds," NSF 95-109 (new) and the form to be used to request the base/matching funds if an award is made, NSF 1369 (6/95), are available electronically through STIS (refer to the inside front cover of this announcement) or a hard copy can be obtained by contacting the NSF Forms and Publications Unit. CAREER Directorate Contacts: Sharon L. Middledorf smiddled@nsf.gov 703-306-1384 Daniel C. Davis ddavis@nsf.gov 703-306-1384 Division of Electrical & Communications Systems (ECS - 0701): 703-306-1339 Division of Chemical & Transport Systems (CTS - 0702): 703-306-1371 Division of Civil & Mechanical Systems (CMS - 0703): 703-306-1360 Division of Design, Manufacture & Industrial Innovation (DMII - 0706): 703-306-1330 Division of Bioengineering & Environmental Systems (BES - 0709): 703-306-1320 Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) and Office of Polar Programs (OPP) Directorate Emphasis: Applicants to the Antarctic program should refer to the Antarctic Research Program Announcement and Proposal Preparation Guidelines (NSF 91-41), and to the Antarctic Research Proposal Guideline Annex (NSF 94-62). Those preparing proposals which include Antarctic field work should consult a program officer prior to proposal submission. Additional information regarding research programs in Earth Sciences is available in publication NSF 93-66. An informal guide to Ocean Sciences research activities is provided in publication NSF 93-163. Division of Atmospheric Sciences (ATM - 0602): 703-306-1528 CAREER Contact: Pamela Stephens pstephen@nsf.gov 703-306-1528 Division of Earth Sciences (EAR - 0603): 703-306-1557 CAREER Contact: Judith Hannah jhannah@nsf.gov 703-306-1557 Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE - 0604): 703-306-1580 CAREER Contact: Michael Reeve mreeeve@nsf.gov 703-306-1582 Office of Polar Programs (OPP - 0102): 703-306-1033 CAREER Contact: Julie Palais jpalais@nsf.gov 703-306-1033 Directorate for Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MPS) Directorate Emphasis: In addition to collaborative research relationships, the Directorate encourages interdisciplinary research activities. Equipment purchases, not normally to exceed $50,000, should be included in the first year's budget. Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST - 0302) 703-306-1820 CAREER Contact: James Wright jwright@nsf.gov 703-306-1819 Division of Chemistry (CHE - 0309) 703-306-1840 CAREER Contact: Karolyn Eisenstein keisenst@nsf.gov 703-306-1840 Division of Materials Research (DMR - 0307) 703-306-1810 CAREER Contact: Robert Reynik rreynik@nsf.gov 703-306-1814 Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS - 0304) 703-306-1870 CAREER Contact: Al Thaler athaler@nsf.gov 703-306-1880 Division of Physics (PHY - 0301) 703-306-1890 CAREER Contact: Rolf M. Sinclair rsinclair@nsf.gov 703-306-1809 Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate Emphasis: Additional information on specific research areas is available in Publication NSF 94-64. CAREER Directorate Contact: Bonney H. Sheahan bsheahan@nsf.gov 703-306-1733 Division of Social, Behavioral and Economic Research (SBER - 0404): 703-306-1760 Division of International Programs (INT - 0406): 1-800-437-7408 Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS - 0403): 703-306-1780 OMB 3145-0058 P.T.: 34 K.W.: 1000000,0600000,0400000 1010000,1004000 NSF 95-118 (Replaces NSF 94-101 & NSF 94-135A-G) ------ end of nsf95118.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Aug 7 21:43:39 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA20441; Mon, 7 Aug 95 21:43:37 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26900; 7 Aug 95 21:43 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22506; Mon, 7 Aug 95 18:41:24 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA15125; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 19:40:16 -0600 Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 19:40:16 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #112 - DOE, DOD Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 112: August 7, 1995 Updates to Appropriations Process: DOE, DOD Bills Beginning August 5, members of the House of Representatives left town for their August recess, or "district work period." The Senate hopes to follow them out of town at the end of this week, although a number of issues remain on the Senate's calendar. This FYI provides updates on recent action on DOE and DOD appropriations, while FYI #113 gives additional information on the VA/HUD funding bill, and the rescissions bill for current-year funding. FYIs #110 and #111 reported that the FY 1996 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT Appropriations bill, H.R. 1905, had passed the Senate floor on August 1. At the time, details of changes made on the floor were not available, but information was provided on the recommendations made by the Senate Appropriations Committee in S. Report 104-120. The amounts recommended in the committee report still hold, except for fusion funding. An amendment accepted on the floor would allow continued use of the TFTR, as follows: "...within available funds $56,000,000 may be available to continue operation of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (for which purpose, the Secretary may use savings from reducing general administrative expenses in accordance with the Department of Energy's strategic alignment and downsizing effort, but none of the savings used for this purpose shall come from programmatic accounts within this title.)" Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) noted, "This amendment is a smart one because it makes use of existing Department of Energy resources. It is also a no-cost amendment. It does not increase any account in this bill. And it does not take one cent from any other Department of Energy research program." Bingaman continued, "...the current language in the energy and water bill is ambiguous about the TFTR machine. Therefore, this amendment seeks to clarify that the Secretary of Energy will have the authority to keep TFTR effectively operating for another three years. And it accomplishes exactly what the PCAST report called for with regard to TFTR." (see FYIs #98, 105 for more on the PCAST fusion report.) H.R. 2126, the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Appropriations bill for FY 1996, has been reported out of both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The House Committee passed the bill on July 25, the Senate Committee on July 28. Discussion of the bill was begun on the House floor on July 31, but was not completed by the time the House went out on recess. Last year, then-Chairman John Murtha (D-PA) of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense raised concern in the scientific community by cutting $900 million from a request of $1.8 billion for DOD-sponsored university research; the amount of the reduction was changed to $200 million in conference (see FYI #146, 1994.) This year, the House Appropriations Committee has recommended $7.7 billion more than President Clinton's request for DOD, and the $1.6 billion more than the President's request for the Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation account. These increases make a reduction to university research this year appear unlikely. ##END########## From jgosz@salado.unm.edu Wed Aug 9 09:33:48 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01405; Wed, 9 Aug 95 09:33:47 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03073; 9 Aug 95 9:33 EDT Received: from salado.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09275; Wed, 9 Aug 95 06:31:10 PDT Received: by salado.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04017; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 07:30:01 -0600 Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 07:29:59 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #113 - NSF, NASA Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 113: August 8, 1995 Updates to Appropriations Process: VA/HUD, Rescissions Bills Beginning August 5, members of the House of Representatives left town for their August recess. The Senate hopes to follow them out of town at the end of this week. This FYI provides updates on recent action on the VA/HUD bill, and the Fiscal Year 1995 rescissions bill. FYI #112 covered the DOE and DOD appropriations bills. As reported in FYI #109, the House passed the FY 1996 VA/HUD/INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, H.R. 2099, on July 31. No changes were made to the NSF portion of the bill, leaving NSF funding at the levels recommended by the House Appropriations Committee (see FYI 101.) This would provide total NSF funding of $3.16 billion, compared to a request of $3.36 billion. Research and Related Activities would receive $2.25 billion (request: $2.45 billion.) The other NSF accounts would be funded at their requested levels, including: Education and Human Resources, $599 million; Academic Research Infrastructure, $100 million; and Major Research Equipment, $70 million. NASA funding, too, remained unchanged from the House Appropriations Committee's recommendations (see FYI #106.) NASA would receive a total of $13.67 billion, compared to a request of $14.26 billion. Human Space Flight would receive $5.45 billion (request: $5.51 billion), with the space station fully funded at $1.83 billion (plus additional funding for related activities.) Space science would receive $1.98 billion, an increase from the request of $1.96 billion. Cassini and related activities would be funded at the request of $249.0 million; SOFIA would receive $28.7 million (from a request of $48.7 million), and SIRTF would not be funded. Gravity Probe B would receive $51.5 million. The $338.6 million cut to Mission to Planet Earth's request of $1.34 billion would also remain intact. Two separate amendments to terminate the space station were defeated on the House floor. The first, offered by ranking Appropriations Committee member David Obey (D-WI), would have shifted money from the space station to other programs within the VA/HUD bill. It lost on a 126-299 vote. The second amendment, by Reps. Tim Roemer (D-IN) and Dick Zimmer (R-NJ), to apply space station funds toward deficit reduction, lost by 132-287. While station supporters handily defeated amendments to kill the project, concern over NASA's budget for Earth and space science programs caused George Brown, ranking minority member of the House Science Committee and a key NASA supporter, to conclude that, "as a consequence I will have to oppose the space station." He called that decision "amongst the most difficult that I have ever had to make." The Senate has not yet taken up H.R. 2099, and is not scheduled to do so before beginning its August recess. In another development of relevance to the VA/HUD Appropriations bill, the FISCAL YEAR 1995 RESCISSIONS BILL making reductions to already-appropriated funding was signed into law by President Clinton on July 27. This is good news for the VA/HUD appropriators. If the rescissions bill had remained stalled in Congress, more money would have had to be cut from FY 1996 appropriations bills for Congress to remain on the deficit-reduction track outlined by the Budget Resolution. The VA/HUD bill was considered one of the appropriations bills most likely to be threatened with further reductions if the rescissions bill did not pass. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Aug 14 10:22:10 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17428; Mon, 14 Aug 95 10:22:08 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29962; 14 Aug 95 10:22 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04693; Mon, 14 Aug 95 07:16:43 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA11402; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 08:15:38 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01815; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 08:09:18 -0600 Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 08:09:17 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: funding opportunity, Conservation and Restoration Biology Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ------ begin of nsf9489.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ Title : NSF 94-89 BASIC RESEARCH IN CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION BIOLOGY Type : Program Guideline NSF Org: BIO / DEB Date : August 11, 1995 File : nsf9489 ******************************************************************** NOTE: This document is a reposting to STIS, NO CHANGES OR REVISIONS were made to the document. File was deleted prematurely. ******************************************************************** BASIC RESEARCH IN CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION BIOLOGY ____________________ Special Competition DIRECTORATE FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES PROPOSAL RECEIPT DEADLINE: September 29 AWARDS WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY: June 1 National Science Foundation The Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO), as a part of an initiative in Biological Diversity, hosts a special competition to evaluate and support fundamental research projects aimed at elucidating principles that underlie the conservation and restoration of biological diversity. Biological diversity is broadly defined as the variety of life and its processes. Appropriate subjects for investigation include natural and managed ecosystems, landscapes, communities, species and populations. In addition, the genetic, behavioral, physiological, and ecological processes occurring within these systems, and how human activities affect them, are also appropriate topics for research in this special competition. Proposals may address any level of evolutionary, ecological, physiological or behavioral analysis, or may seek to integrate across levels or disciplines. The competition is particularly interested in proposals that focus on scientific principles and approaches to the restoration of biological diversity. The Special Competition in Conservation and Restoration Biology awards between $1.5-$2.0 million each year. Annual award size has ranged from $40,000 to $90,000. Award duration has ranged from six months to four years. Divisions in BIO participating in this competition include Environmental Biology (DEB), Integrative Biology and Neuroscience (IBN), and Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB). Prospective investigators are strongly encouraged to contact the appropriate division for additional guidance specific to that division and its programs. In the Directorate for Biological Sciences, the Division contacts can be reached at: Division of Environmental Biology 703/306-1479 Integrative Biology and Neuroscience 703/306-1419 Molecular and Cellular Biosciences 703/306-1440 The Special Competition in Conservation and Restoration Biology is related to the Human Dimensions of Global Change Program in the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. For more information about this program contact the Program Officer for: Geography and Regional Science 703/306-1754 Proposals submitted to the Special Competition in Conservation and Restoration Biology should be written to fit within the normal program scope and definitional boundaries of one or more of the participating programs. In addition, proposals should deal explicitly with topics that address fundamental research on the basic principles of conservation and restoration biology. Provide a section entitled "Relation of the Proposed Research to Conservation and/or Restoration Biology" in the first part of the body of the proposal. Otherwise, follow standard guidelines for the preparation of proposals elaborated in the Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 94-2). Proposals that do not conform to the GPG guidelines will be returned unreviewed. Several types of proposals are considered inappropriate for this special competition. They include the following: . Proposals aimed at technologies of germplasm preservation, . Proposals whose main objective is management, e.g., the protection, recovery or restoration of specific populations, species, communities or ecosystems, . Proposals dealing with the mitigation of specific environmental disturbances, . Proposals aimed at veterinary medicine, and . Proposals that require or are based upon support for the acquisition of real estate or the construction or renovation of facilities. Deadline for receipt of proposals is 29 September. Mail 15 copies of proposals to: Proposal Processing Unit, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Mark proposal cover sheets with the designation "Conservation Research: NSF 94-89." Who May Submit The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in the research and related programs described here. In accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, gender, national origin or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistant from the National Science Foundation. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff) to work on an NSF-supported project. For details, refer to the program announcement (NSF 91-54) or contact the program officer at (703) 306-1636. The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability which enables individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. This number is (703) 306-0090. Using electronic dissemination, you can get information quickly through STIS (Science and Technology Information System), NSF's online publishing system described in NSF 94-4, the "STIS Flyer." To get a paper copy of the flyer, call the NSF Publications Section at (703) 306-1130. For an electronic copy, send an e-mail message to: stisfly@nsf.gov [INTERNET] or stisfly@nsf [BITNET]. Privacy Act and Public Burden. Information requested on NSF application materials is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be used and disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process and to other government agencies. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator / Proposals File and Associated Records" and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal Files and Associated Records" 56 Federal Register 54907 (October 23, 1991). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Herman G. Fleming, Reports Clearance Officer Division of Contracts, Policy & Oversight National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 and to: Office of Management and Budget Paperwork Reduction Project (3145-0058) Washington, DC 20503 Administration of Grants. Grants awarded as a result of this announcement will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1 or FDP-11, Grant General Conditions. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room P15, Arlington, VA 22230; by telephone, (703) 306-1130; or via electronic mail (BITNET: pubs@nsf; INTERNET: pubs@nsf.gov). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (7.89) for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. ________________________________________________________ Catalogue of Domestic Federal Assistance Number 47.074 Biological Sciences OMB 3145-0058 P.T. 34 K.W. 1002004, 1002005, 1002016, 1230025, 0400000 NSF 94-89 (replaces NSF 90-66) ------ end of nsf9489.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Aug 14 12:12:27 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17839; Mon, 14 Aug 95 12:12:25 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27481; 14 Aug 95 12:12 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05656; Mon, 14 Aug 95 09:08:38 PDT Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 09:08:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, lmerpi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: 11/'95 Global Biodiversity Forum, Jakarta Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 15:57:13 +0200 From: GROSE Kevin Subject: Biodiversity Forum ANNOUNCEMENT CALL FOR PAPERS GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FORUM 4-5 November 1995 Atlet Century Park Hotel Jl Pintu Satu Senayan Jakarta, Indonesia Convenors: Indonesian Biodiversity Foundation (KEHATI) Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) - Indonesia Programme IUCN - The World Conservation Union World Resources Institute (WRI) African Centre for Technological Studies (ACTS) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) BACKGROUND The third meeting of the Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF) will be convened on 4-5 November 1995, immediately prior to the second meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP2), 6-17 November 1995. GBF-Jakarta will be held at the Atlet Century Park Hotel, which is near the venue for COP2. The GBF provides for an independent, open process to foster analysis and unencumbered dialogue and debate among interested parties to address the key ecological, economic, institutional and social issues related to the options for action to save, study and use biodiversity sustainably and equitably. It works closely with those involved with the further development and implementation of the Convention at the local and national level to complement the intergovernmental process with perspectives and proposals from independent sources. Forum-like events were held under the aegis of the Global Biodiversity Strategy, the Convention, and the preparations of AGENDA 21. The first formal test of the Forum concept was hosted by the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) in Nairobi in January 1993. The first meeting of the GBF was hosted by IUCN in October 1993, in Gland, Switzerland, and examined critical issues facing the further development of the Convention. It was held immediately prior to the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee on the Convention on Biological Diversity. The second meeting of the GBF was hosted by the Bahamas National Trust and held immediately prior to the first meeting of the COP to the Convention, in Nassau, in November 1994. GBF-Jakarta will focus on four themes: Marine Biodiversity; Regulation of Access to Genetic Resources; Decentralization of Governance and Biodiversity Conservation; and Forests and Biodiversity. CALL FOR PAPERS Interested parties from all sectors are invited to submit one- page, type-written abstracts of papers for presentation in any of the four themes at the Forum. Abstracts must be received by IUCN by 10 September 1995. Please use the form below. A limited number of papers will be chosen for formal presentation at the Forum. All participants are encouraged to bring short ideas and proposals for presentation and debate. Every effort will be made by the hosts to reproduce and distribute them. The Forum in not an academic seminar, and at least 50 percent of its time will be devoted to open discussion among all participants. The selection of papers will be made by Workshop organizers and Forum convenors on the basis of relevance to the topic, quality, balance among sectors, and geographical balance. Authors selected to present papers will be contacted by 15 September. The selected authors will then need to submit their completed papers to IUCN by 15 October, so that they may be reproduced for distribution at the Forum. Papers not selected for formal presentation will still be reproduced for distribution at the Forum and will be considered for subsequent publication in the Forum proceedings. FORMAT AND AGENDA The Forum will consist of an opening and closing plenary, and four parallel workshops to address each of the four themes. In addition, four lunch-time sessions are being scheduled during the COP to carry on the discussion on these issues. Marine Biodiversity: At the COP1, governments agreed to take up marine biodiversity as the main ecosystem theme of COP2. Conservation of marine biodiversity raises questions significantly different from those in the terrestrial context. This workshop will provide a venue for all interested sectors to share information and strategies concerning the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity and biological resources. Those submitting abstracts may wish to consider the following areas: unique problems of marine biodiversity conservation and proposed solutions; marine protected area management and policy; community-based coastal resources management; marine biodiversity prospecting; needs and mechanisms for regional and international cooperation; relationship of the Biodiversity Convention to other international marine treaties and programmes; funding priorities for marine biodiversity conservation; and priorities for special action by the COP and its Subsidiary Bodies on marine biodiversity. Organizers: Biodiversity Action Network (BIONET), USA; Tambuyog Development Center, Philippines; WRI, Philippines/USA; and IUCN- US. Regulating Access to Genetic Resources: The Biodiversity Convention establishes that genetic resources lie within the sovereign jurisdiction of individual nations. Countries are now moving to establish legal regimes to regulate access to and utilization of their genetic resources, which due to the rapid development of biotechnologies, are becoming increasingly valuable as raw material in the development of drugs, crops, and industrial material and processes. But few models for regulating access yet exist, capacities to enforce such regulatory regimes are weak and working mechanisms for ensuring the equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources utilization -- both among and within nations -- are in their infancy. Those submitting abstracts are encouraged to consider the following areas: current national-level efforts to develop policies and laws regulating genetic resources access; case studies of ongoing "biodiversity prospecting" efforts and their legal and/or contractual basis; informed consent by and compensation for local communities within national access regulation frameworks; principles and mechanisms for benefit-sharing; the unique situation of indigenous peoples with respect to genetic resources exploitation in their territories; building capacity to regulate and benefit from genetic resources utilization; and the need for international mechanisms to harmonize and give effect to national access regulation regimes. Organizers: African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Kenya; WRI; IUCN Environmental Law Centre, Germany; Peruvian Society for Environmental Law; and the Institute of International Legal Studies, Philippines. Decentralization of Governance and Biodiversity Conservation: Many national governments are moving to decentralize a share of their powers to provincial, state, or lower levels of government, or even giving some of their traditional responsibilities to the private sector. At the same time, the role of non-governmental actors and community-based institutions in carrying out many "governmental" functions is growing larger. The Biodiversity Convention, however, pays little attention to the roles of local government and the institutions of local civil society in conserving biodiversity. Individuals submitting abstracts for this workshop may wish to consider the following questions: What experience exists to date with decentralization of biodiversity management? What steps need to be taken to ensure that increasing decentralization of governance helps rather than hurts biodiversity conservation? What are the key needs for capacity- building at the sub-national levels? How can financing of biodiversity conservation flow directly to local level efforts and reflect local level priorities? Organizers: KEHATI, IUCN, and WWF-Indonesia Programme Forests and biodiversity: Forests are a key repository for the earth's biodiversity, as well as important resources for both national and local economies. Forest loss has been a topic of great concern, particulary in the species-rich tropical forests, for at least a decade or more. There is general agreement that knowledge of the various factors affecting forests, and particularly the interactions among them, are as yet poorly understood. Better and more relevant research is necessary to provide answers to the intricate problems of sustainable forest management. Furthermore, there was no agreement at UNCED on a mechanism for promoting sustainability in the world's forests. A protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity has been one proposed mechanism, but can the Convention effectively address the myriad of socio-economic and biophysical factors affecting the sustainability of forests? What specific steps should be taken within the context of the Biodiversity Convention? What is the role of science in helping the develop a comprehensive mechanism to promote sustainable forest management? Organizers: Centre for International Forest Research (CIFOR), Indonesia; WWF Forest Project, Switzerland; and others to be added. PARTICIPATION AND REGISTRATION FEES Please use the participation form provided below to notify the organizers of your intent to participate. The deadline for receiving the participation form is 30 September 1995. Registration for the Forum will cost US$25 for all participants, to cover the costs of refreshments and photocopying. The fee will be collected at the registration desk. A very limited number of waivers on the fee will be made available to those with the greatest financial need but only on the basis of a written application to Jeffrey McNeely prior to 20 October 1995. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Financial assistance for airfare and per diem will be made available to developing country participants chosen to present formal papers or to otherwise contribute to the Forum pending the outcome of ongoing fundraising efforts. All participants requiring financial assistance are urged to also seek travel support from the local offices of international donor organizations. For government representatives from developing countries wishing to participate in the Forum, funding will be sought to provide the necessary additional per diem expenses. HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS The venue for the Global Biodiversity Forum is the Atlet Century Park Hotel (3 Star, Single = $98; Double = $108), which is near the Jakarta Convention Centre where the second meeting of the Conference of Parties will be held. Please fill in the hotel section of the Participation Form if you require assistance with hotel arrangements. For further information regarding the Global Biodiversity Forum, please contact: Jeffrey McNeely, Chief Biodiversity Officer, Global Biodiversity Forum '95, IU CN-The World Conservation Union, 28 Rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland. Tel: +41.22.999-0001; Fax: +41.22.999-0025; email: jam@hq.iucn.ch GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FORUM '95 ABSTRACT SUBMISSION FORM (Please type or print clearly) PLEASE RETURN WITH ONE PAGE ABSTRACT BY 10 SEPTEMBER 1995 TO: Jeffrey McNeely, Global Biodiversity Forum '95, IUCN, 28 Rue Mauverney, CH-119 6 Gland, Switzerland. Tel: +41.22.999-0001; Fax: +41.22.999-0025; E-mail: jam@h q.iucn.ch PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Mr/Ms ________________________________________________________ Family name First name Organization ________________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Tel ______________________ Fax ______________________ Email ______________________ SUBMITTED TO (please check relevant workshop(s)): Marine Biodiversity Regulation of Access to Genetic Resources Decentralization of Governance and Biodiversity Conservation Forests and Biodiversity GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FORUM '95 PARTICIPATION FORM PLEASE RETURN BY 30 SEPTEMBER 1995 TO: Russell Betts or Rita Oetomo, World Wide Fund for Nature/Indonesia Programme, Jl. Kramat Pela No. 3, Gandar ia Utara, Jakarta Selatan 12140, Indonesia. Tel: +6221.720-3095/724-5766/739-590 7; Fax: +6221.739-5907; E-mail: 2518413@mcimail.com PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Mr/Ms ________________________________________________________ Family name First name Organization ________________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Tel ______________________ Fax ______________________ Email ______________________ HOTEL RESERVATION (Please mark as appropriate): SINGLE: _____ DOUBLE: _____ Price Range: Below US$40_____ US$40 - 49 _____ US$50 - 59 _____ US$60 - 69 _____ US$70 - 79 _____ US$80 - 89 _____ Above US$90_____ If you already know the hotel at which you wish to be booked, kindly print the name here:_______________________________ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Aug 16 10:09:21 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25879; Wed, 16 Aug 95 10:09:19 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22515; 16 Aug 95 10:09 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03782; Wed, 16 Aug 95 07:08:10 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04790; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 08:07:03 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA02066; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 08:00:40 -0600 Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 08:00:39 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #116 - NIST Authorization (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 116: August 15, 1995 Senate Commerce Committee Authorizes NIST At this stage in the appropriations process, the House has passed a bill (H.R. 2076) funding the Department of Commerce for FY 1996 (see FYI #103, 108.) The Senate will take up the Commerce appropriations bill after returning from its August break on September 6. Although the House-passed appropriations bill funds the Department at 83 percent of its current level, its opponents have received a promise from the House leadership that legislation to eliminate the Department will be included in this fall's budget reconciliation bill. (The reconciliation bill, which is different than the appropriations bills, is intended to provide details on how Congress will achieve the balanced-budget goal articulated in this spring's Budget Resolution.) Various hearings have been held and bills introduced in both chambers on the fate of the Commerce Department and its trade and technology programs, including NIST. While NIST's core laboratory research functions have been preserved in both authorizing and appropriating legislation in the House, its extramural programs, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), have not fared as well. The House Science Committee passed a bill (H.R. 1870) authorizing NIST's laboratory research, but did not pass an authorization for the extramural programs (see FYI #89.) The House Appropriations Committee zeroed out funding for ATP, while decreasing MEP funding by 10.5 percent from its current budget. However, a small ray of hope for the ATP has appeared in the Senate. Before leaving for the August recess, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, chaired by Larry Pressler (R-SD), on August 10 reported out a three-year authorization bill for the Commerce Department's technology programs that includes some support for NIST's extramural programs. According to Pressler, the bill, S. 1141, "lends strength and stability to the Department of Commerce's important technology and research programs.... If we are going to reinvent the programs of the Commerce Department...this bill starts us on that path." Pressler said the bill directs the Department to "establish a plan for eliminating the largely redundant Office of Technology Policy during fiscal year 1996, transferring any essential functions to NIST. The bill also makes substantial cuts in funding for the Technology Administration. However, with the exception of the Office of Technology Policy, the bill continues all of the Technology Administration's major programs." "With regard to NIST," Pressler said, "the bill provides $750 million for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. This authorization is a 12-percent cut from the fiscal year 1995 level of $854 million. The bill provides $263 million for the NIST internal research programs and standards activities.... [T]he bill fully funds NIST's lab and standards programs from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1998 at their fiscal year 1995 funding level...." "The bill also provides strong support for NIST's Industrial Technology Services [ITS] account, which funds the agency's Advanced Technology Program and the manufacturing extension partnership. The bill authorizes $427 million a year from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1998 for the ITS account, a cut of 19 percent from the fiscal year 1995 appropriation of $526 million. "The bill leaves it to the discretion of the agency how to allocate funding among ATP, MEP, and the [Malcolm Baldridge] quality programs within the ITS account. However, the bill makes clear it does not authorize any funding for ATP grants after October 1, 1995. This limitation reflects the belief that, since it was first funded in fiscal year 1990, the ATP has grown too big, too fast, without demonstrating clear benefits to U.S. industry.... Accordingly, the bill only authorizes support for existing grants while Congress has a chance to evaluate more closely the value of ATP in our competitiveness strategy." Pressler's bill also provides $60 million for construction and renovation of NIST facilities in each of the three years, and recommends that NIST establish an Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology [EPSCOT]. "Modeled after similar programs at the National Science Foundation and other science agencies," Pressler explained, "EPSCOT will provide grants for research and outreach work in rural States like my home State of South Dakota.... Our rural States want to contribute to the technological revolution. EPSCOT will help them do so." Whether Pressler's views on NIST funding have an influence on the actions of the Senate Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee remains to be seen. ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Aug 17 17:41:08 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02217; Thu, 17 Aug 95 17:41:06 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21617; 17 Aug 95 17:41 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24436; Thu, 17 Aug 95 14:35:28 PDT Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Undergraduate Science Education Awards--NSF PR 95-55 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Njuguna Kabugi August 14, 1995 (703) 306-1070 NSF PR 95-55 NEW UNDERGRADUATE SCIENCE EDUCATION AWARDS AIM REFORM INSTITUTION-WIDE The National Science Foundation (NSF) expects to make 10- 15 awards of up to $200,000 each, to 2- and 4-year colleges and universities that have demonstrated success in revitalizing undergraduate education on a relatively modest scale and now wish to infuse the entire institution with similar gains. According to Dr. Luther Williams, NSF's Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources, through these grants, NSF seeks to foster enhanced student learning and preparation for the professional challenges that exist in an increasingly interdependent global society. "Students from a variety of backgrounds, preparing for diverse careers, depend increasingly on undergraduate institutions to prepare them to function effectively in a society that is increasingly based on science and technology. All will require proficiency in science and mathematics in order to be competent professionals, knowledgeable consumers, and responsible citizens," Williams said. By publicly recognizing and rewarding visionary plans based on significant previous achievements, NSF hopes to stimulate modernization of the academic culture and infrastructure, and aim for a reexamination of institutional priorities and resource allocations, which are essential for the comprehensive reform of undergraduate education," Williams added. We anticipate supporting activities that build on the small scale innovations that have been the basis for fundamental change within a focused area," said Robert Watson, director of NSF's Division of Undergraduate Education. "We wish to encourage the development of instructional modes that optimize learning of mathematics and science by all students, the design of programs that transcend disciplinary boundaries, and the improvement of student-teacher interactions," Watson added. This emphasis on recognizing and promoting institutional reform of undergraduate education is an extension of the NSF's Course and Curriculum Development Program which seeks to prepare an increasingly diverse undergraduate student body to navigate in the information-, science- and technology-based society of the future. The increasing diversity of students and the broader mission of undergraduate instruction in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education require pedagogical approaches that are sensitive to variations in cultural and academic backgrounds and learning styles. Closing date for submissions will be December 4, 1995. Proposals must be submitted by the institution's president. Requests for information should be addressed to the Division of Undergraduate Education, Room 835, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. -end- Press releases and other information are now available electronically on NSFnews, a free service available via the Internet. To subscribe to NSFnews send an e-mail message to listmanager@nsf.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject line) type the words subscribe nsfnews and then type your name (not an e-mail address). For example: Subscribe nsfnews James Smith. The system will reply with a confirmation via e-mail. For additional information about NSFnews send another e-mail message to listmanager@nsf.gov and in the body of the message type the word help. From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Aug 25 15:10:30 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03312; Fri, 25 Aug 95 15:10:28 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa27470; 25 Aug 95 15:10 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15827; Fri, 25 Aug 95 12:06:12 PDT Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 12:06:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu, net@lternet.washington.edu Cc: rperkins@lternet.washington.edu, jfischer@lternet.washington.edu, erudin@lternet.washington.edu, bnaiman@lternet.washington.edu, Jackson Webster , jgreenberg@lternet.washington.edu Subject: Network News Copy Deadline & Submission Instructions (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR R E M I N D E R! NEWSLETTER DEADLINE - Friday, September 1, 1995 (All copy and illustrative material due) Dear LTER PIs and other contributors: I need to know right away if you have any *breaking* news or calendar items, recent site publications, or meeting and workshop announcements or reports that you would like me to include in this issue. I WILL NEED ALL MATERIAL (including any new items) BY FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 1. Detailed submission instructions follow. Thank you! Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> *LTER Network News* Submission Instructions TEXT SUBMISSIONS: Please send your contribution to me in ASCII text format via electronic mail or in binary form via ftp (see step-by-step instructions below) with a backup hard copy via regular mail (to confirm any special formatting, such as super- and subscripts). Most e-mail editors also allow you to send files in native formats as attachments--but please, no files that require special decoders. If you prefer, send me a 3.5" disk with the word processing program used noted. I have the capability to read in most standard PC and Mac formats, depending on the version. I use WordPerfect 2.1 (and recently obtained Word 6.0.1) and PageMaker on a System 7 Mac Quadra. In general, please contact me before you send material so we can determine together the best option(s) and method(s) of transfer. PHOTOS, FIGURES, ILLUSTRATIONS: Ideally, I need *original* high-resolution line art (either original laser print or generic PostScript file) and BLACK and WHITE prints of photographs. Color slides are also suitable. Color prints are the least desirable and require the most time to correct for black and white printing. Xeroxed copies of figures generally are not of high-enough quality. CREDITS: Please provide author/photographer/illustrator credit (full name or exactly as it should appear) and *brief* caption or legend information where needed. Also note whether I may keep illustrative material for our files or if you would like it returned. Thank you! Stephanie Martin Editor, LTER Network News >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> SENDING TEXT OR GRAPHIC FILES VIA FTP (These instructions assume that you are connecting to LTERnet as an anonymous user.) To send text or graphic files, follow these steps: If you are using DOS or UNIX, first go to the directory in which the file you wish to send resides. (Mac users may also use Fetch to sign on to lternet.edu and send files in binary form to the path noted in #'s 5 and 6 below.) 1. Type/enter "ftp lternet.edu" 2. When the``Name'' prompt appears, type/enter ``anonymous'' 3. The message that a guest login is OK appears. At the "Password" prompt type/enter the "indent" or "tab" key followed by your e-mail address if you are an anonymous user (or your password if you have an LTERnet account). The address will not appear on your screen as you type it in. 4. At the ftp prompt (ftp>), type/enter "bin" (for binary) to ensure the file arrives as formatted. 5. You should now be in the directory /home/ftp. Type/enter "cd pub/upload/lter", then "ls" to view the subdirectories. You should see one for each site ("and", "bnz", "cdr", etc.) the Network Office ("net"), and "others" for non-LTER contributors. 6. Set the path to the subdirectory for your site (I'm using the abbreviation for H.J. Andrews, "and", as an example) by typing "cd and". 7. Type/enter "send filename" (or "get filename" if you are retrieving a file). The message "Transfer Complete" indicates that the file has probably transferred successfully. To doublecheck, type "ls" to view a listing of current files and see if the one you just sent is there. 8. Type ``quit'' to disconnect from lternet.edu. 9. Notify me via e-mail (sMartin@LTERnet.edu) that the file (include name) has been transferred and into which subdirectory. If you encounter difficulties, consult with your local computer technician or check with me and I'll work with Ray Bero at the Network Office to find a solution. >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> PLEASE NOTE: I cannot delete files from your site subdirectory in this temporary file exchange area unless I have placed them there. To avoid the accumulation of old files, please remember to remove any you "own" once we have agreed on their final form for publications projects. Also, please do not use this area for general file exchange or storage--a separate scratch directory was established for that purpose. Thank you! From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Aug 25 17:32:03 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03735; Fri, 25 Aug 95 17:32:01 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03711; 25 Aug 95 17:32 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18819; Fri, 25 Aug 95 14:30:26 PDT Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: NSF Fall Lecture Series (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Note that Bruce Hayden (item #2 below) will be among the speakers for this new lecture series developed by Cheryl Dybas. >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> HOT OFF THE PRESSES: NSF FALL LECTURE SERIES FEATURES NEW WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING OUR EARTH Glimpse elusive sprites, discover the secrets of long-ago villages, and journey to the center of the Earth, as part of a fall lecture series at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Featured will be the latest research by NSF-supported scientists just returning from summer field seasons. All presentations will be held at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia. For more information, please contact Cheryl Dybas at NSF at: 703/306-1070. ***************************************************************** "IS IT A BIRD, IS IT A PLANE, IS IT A UFO?" Thursday, September 28th, at 10:30 AM, Room 310 Is it a bird, is it a plane, is it a UFO? Strange lights in the sky have recently been discovered by atmospheric scientists. Dubbed red sprites, these dancing fairies-of-the-clouds are sometimes glimpsed as blood-red bursts of light in the shape of jellyfish. At other times, they appear as a trumpet-shaped blue glow, called a blue jet. Like the most elusive of nymphs, however, red sprites and blue jets come out on only one occasion: during severe thunderstorms, says researcher Davis Sentman, who spent his summer in pursuit of these wraiths, which may hold clues to atmospheric chemistry and global climate. ***************************************************************** "ISLANDS ON THE GO: THE LAND MUST CHANGE...TO STAY THE SAME" Wednesday, October 25th, at 10:30 AM, Room 310 Hog Island, Virginia was once called a paradise. It "discounts the fabled island of Calypso," wrote Captain James Sterling in his early history of the island. At the turn of the century, the village of Broadwater at the island's southern end boasted a population of some 400 people, with a school, church, hotel, and stores. Attracted by plentiful fish and game, sportsmen later built hunting lodges there. Today, the lodges--and the school, church, hotel, and stores-- are all gone. Hog Island still exists, but there are few signs that Broadwater was ever more than myth. What happened to the village and its people? Ecologist Bruce Hayden will answer that question, with a presentation on how barrier islands are formed, and how they must change...to stay the same. ***************************************************************** "JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH" Wednesday, November 15, at 10:30 AM, Room 1295 Last June, hundreds of miles beneath Bolivia, Earth quaked. There, in a scene straight out of Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth, a sleeping giant woke up: a very large (magnitude 8.3) earthquake shook an area more than 30 miles wide. Geologist Paul Silver has analyzed an unprecedented set of seismic measurements to find that the Bolivian "deep quake" happened in a subduction zone, a place where slabs of relatively cold material from our planet's upper layers are swallowed by the maw of Earth's hotter mantle. Beneath Bolivia, the Nazca plate, or slab, descends below the South American continent. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Aug 29 12:42:27 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08452; Tue, 29 Aug 95 12:42:26 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab05875; 29 Aug 95 12:42 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13387; Tue, 29 Aug 95 09:38:33 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01492; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:37:33 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00605; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:31:05 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:31:05 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #118 - NASA Policy Guide (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 118: August 24, 1995 NASA Releases Science Policy Draft for Public Comment Buffeted by the fickle winds of fiscal policy, NASA has seen its budget shrink by 30 percent over the last two years, with more to come. This has resulted in drastic reductions, restructuring, and in some cases outright termination of programs. Making these changes in a reasonable and efficient manner calls for a clear statement of the space agency's policies and principles. NASA has articulated policies for its science programs in a July 25 draft document entitled "Science in Air and Space: NASA's Science Policy Guide." The draft will be open for public comment for six months. NASA policies "were, in many cases, established in the early 1960's," the document acknowledges, and "conditions are now changing in ways that require a reexamination of these policies." In the post-Cold War era, more emphasis is being placed on international cooperation, global economic competitiveness, deficit-reduction, contributions to larger national goals, and partnerships with industry and academia. "It is now clear that both the public and the political system expect benefits broader than purely scientific ones to be derived from NASA research programs and missions," the draft states. In addition to contributing to the nation's basic scientific knowledge, NASA has identified four areas in which the agency can make significant contributions to larger national goals: the economy, the environment, education, and exploration. In addition, NASA will explicitly direct "attention and resources" towards such areas as developing new technologies, providing a basis for (environmental) policy decisions, contributing towards foreign policy via international collaborations, developing the capabilities of universities and industry, contributing to math and science education and public outreach, and improving the health and well-being of Americans. The 31-page guide provides an in-depth discussion of how to measure the quality of research programs, as well as how to broaden participation in them, and the responsibilities of participants. It concludes, "This reexamination of NASA's basic policies concerning the conduct of its research program has reaffirmed the essential soundness of many of NASA's traditional policies.... At the same time, it has described many areas of change and identified...a number of issues or critical areas where further changes are necessary or a more thorough analysis required." These areas include: balancing flight missions and supporting research programs; assessing the peer review process; developing metrics for evaluating the performance of NASA science programs; encouraging and assessing the breadth and diversity of participation; defining and maintaining world-class capabilities at NASA Centers; enabling the most productive use of NASA research facilities; developing technology transfer policies for international cooperation; determining the best data dissemination approaches; leveraging resources to improve scientific literacy and public outreach; using NASA programs to enhance industry's technology base; and determining the appropriate number of scientists, technologists, and students for the agency to support. "Science in Air and Space" is available on the World Wide Web at http://dlt.gsfc.nasa.gov/cordova/guide.html, or by calling 202-358-0000. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Aug 29 12:49:11 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08506; Tue, 29 Aug 95 12:49:10 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08273; 29 Aug 95 12:49 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13465; Tue, 29 Aug 95 09:45:26 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01596; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:44:25 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00617; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:37:57 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:37:56 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #119 - NSF, NASA Cut (1) (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 119: August 25, 1995 "A Question of Priorities": House Rejects Move to Cut NSF, NASA Budgets There are few occasions when Members of Congress publicly must make a clear choice between funding for basic science and technology and other domestic programs. Such an opportunity arose during House action on H.R. 2099, the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 1996 (see FYI #113.) During consideration of this legislation on July 31, Rep. John Ensign, a Republican freshman representing Nevada's 1st District (Las Vegas), offered an amendment to increase the VA medical care appropriation by reducing the NSF and NASA appropriations. After fifteen minutes of debate the House rejected this amendment by more than a two-to-one margin, voting 121-296 against it. This bill is now pending before the Senate VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee chaired by Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO). Under this amendment, the FY 1996 Veterans Health Administration appropriation would have increased by $267 million over that amount provided in H.R. 2099. This increase would have been offset by a $235 million decrease in the National Science Foundation's Research and Related Activities appropriation and an $89.5 million reduction in NASA's Human Space Flight program. Of the 417 Members voting, 29% voted in favor of the Ensign amendment. Among Republicans, 20% voted yes; 40% of Democrats supported this amendment. Ensign opened the debate stating, "I offer my amendment to ensure that we keep the promises made to our veterans." He described a $184 million gap between the recommended VA health care appropriation and the administration's request, which would be closed by his amendment. Ensign continued, "Surely, when veterans are facing the prospect of losing access to health care, the NSF can take a 10-percent cut." Regarding NASA, he stated, "we are talking about a very small reduction in NASA's $13.67 billion allotment," calling it "reasonable middle ground." Five Members spoke in opposition to the Ensign amendment. VA, HUD appropriations subcommittee chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) said the amendment would umbalance the bill, and predicted the proposed NSF cut would have "a dramatic and negative impact." House Science Committee Chairman Bob Walker (R-PA) was stronger in his criticism of the NSF reduction, stating: "we have commitments that are very, very important in science. There are many of these science researchers that over the years also feel that they have a commitment to making certain that we keep this Nation economically strong by having a good basic science base. This particular amendment will cut into that basic science base; this is one of the worst places that we can possibly find to cut programs in the entire VA-HUD budget." Rep. George Brown (D-CA) joined in criticizing the amendment, calling it "ill-advised." He added, "I cannot stress too strongly how important it is not to impose additional budgetary stress on the space shuttle program at a time when the shuttle program is trying to adjust to the cuts already imposed on it." Also opposing the amendment was House Appropriations Chairman Robert Livingston (R-LA), who stated, "There are conflicting interests, all of which are necessary and vital. We pit NASA against housing; housing against veterans' benefits. There is no one in this Chamber that wants to cut any of these things unless it is absolutely necessary. And it is absolutely necessary to cut these to get to a balanced budget by the year 2002." In wrapping up discussion on his amendment, Ensign said, "...this is a difficult decision to make, and I appreciate what the subcommittee chairman [Lewis] and all the members of the [appropriations] committee have gone through in crafting this bill. To me, though, this happens to be a question of priorities." ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Aug 29 12:49:54 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08517; Tue, 29 Aug 95 12:49:52 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08523; 29 Aug 95 12:49 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13480; Tue, 29 Aug 95 09:47:10 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01606; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:46:09 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00623; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:39:42 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:39:41 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #120 - NSF, NASA Cuts (2) (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 120: August 25, 1995 "A Question of Priorities": Ensign Amendment Vote to Cut NSF, NASA The following representatives voted in favor of an amendment offered by Rep. John Ensign (R-Nevada) to reduce the FY 1996 appropriation for the National Science Foundation and NASA. Under this amendment, which was rejected by the House 121-296, the Department of Veterans Affairs appropriation for Medical Care would have increased. Offsetting this increase would have been a $235 million reduction in NSF's Research and Related Activities appropriation and an $89.5 million reduction in NASA's Human Space Flight Account. Members listed below voted IN FAVOR of reducing the NSF and NASA appropriation. Also listed below are those Members who did not vote. ALL OTHER MEMBERS OPPOSED the proposed NSF and NASA reductions (they have not been listed because of space considerations.) *** YEAS (121) *************************************************** DEMOCRATS (75) Ackerman G (NY) Furse E (OR) Owens M (NY) Bishop S (GA) Gejdenson S (CT) Pallone F (NJ) Bonior D (MI) Gephardt R (MO) Pastor E (AZ) Brown C (FL) Geren P (TX) Payne L (VA) Brown S (OH) Gordon B (TN) Peterson C (MN) Bryant J (TX) Gutierrez L (IL) Pomeroy E (ND) Clyburn J (SC) Hall R (TX) Poshard G (IL) Collins B (MI) Hamilton L (IN) Rahall N (WV) Condit G (CA) Hefner W (NC) Reed J (RI) Conyers J (MI) Holden T (PA) Rivers L (MI) Costello J (IL) Jacobs A (IN) Roemer T (IN) Coyne W (PA) Johnson T (SD) Skelton I (MO) Danner P (MO) Kennedy P (RI) Stenholm C (TX) DeFazio P (OR) Kildee D (MI) Stupak B (MI) DeLauro R (CT) Kleczka G (WI) Tejeda F (TX) Dingell J (MI) Lipinski W (IL) Thompson B (MS) Durbin R (IL) Maloney C (NY) Thornton R (AR) Edwards C (TX) Manton T (NY) Traficant (OH) Engel E (NY) Martinez M (CA) Velazquez (NY) Evans L (IL) McNulty M (NY) Volkmer H (MO) Fattah C (PA) Menendez R (NJ) Ward M (KY) Fields C (LA) Mink P (HI) Waters M (CA) Filner B (CA) Montgomery G (MS) Wise B (WV) Foglietta T (PA) Obey D (WI) Woolsey L (CA) Frost M (TX) Orton B (UT) Wyden R (OR) INDEPENDENTS (1) Sanders B (VT) REPUBLICANS (45) Allard W (CO) Dickey J (AR) McHugh J (NY) Bilbray B (CA) Ensign J (NV) McInnis S (CO) Brownback S (KS) Fox J (PA) McIntosh D (IN) Burr R (NC) Gilman B (NY) Molinari S (NY) Camp D (MI) Goodlatte R (VA) Myers J (IN) Canady C (FL) Goodling B (PA) Norwood C (GA) Chabot S (OH) Heineman F (NC) Ramstad J (MN) Chambliss S (GA) Herger W (CA) Riggs F (CA) Chenoweth H (ID) Hilleary V (TN) Saxton H (NJ) Christensen J (NE) Hostettler J (IN) Smith N (MI) Coble H (NC) Hutchinson T (AR) Tate R (WA) Coburn T (OK) Jones W (NC) Vucanovich (NV) Collins M (GA) Kelly S (NY) Watts J (OK) Crapo M (ID) Latham T (IA) Weller J (IL) Cremeans F (OH) LoBiondo F (NJ) Whitfield (KY) *** NAYS (296) *************************************************** DEMOCRATS (113) REPUBLICANS (183) (All Members not otherwise listed.) *** NOT VOTING (18) ********************************************** DEMOCRATS (13) Becerra X (CA) ? Hall T (OH) ? Stark P (CA) ? Farr S (CA) + Moakley J (MA) ? Thurman (FL) ? Flake F (NY) ? Reynolds M (IL) ? Tucker (CA) ? Ford H (TN) ? Rush B (IL) ? Yates S (IL) ? Green G (TX) - REPUBLICANS (5) Gingrich N (GA) S Meyers J (KS) ? Young D (AK) ? Hoke M (OH) ? Moorhead C (CA) ? KEY -- Special Categories of Not Voting # Paired For X Paired Against S Speaker exercised discretion not to vote ? Did not vote or make position known ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Aug 29 13:02:11 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08585; Tue, 29 Aug 95 13:02:08 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa12560; 29 Aug 95 13:02 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13616; Tue, 29 Aug 95 09:59:12 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01816; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:58:11 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00655; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:51:44 -0600 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:51:43 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #121 - Education Report (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 121: August 28, 1995 Education Report Reflects Gains in Science and Math Achievement Last week, the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics released its annual report, entitled "The Condition of Education, 1995." The 518-page document looks at educational trends in the United States over the decade since the 1982 publication of the groundbreaking report, "A Nation At Risk." The introductory statement by Emerson Elliott, Commissioner of Education Statistics, highlights the following trends related to math and science education (the notation "//" means separate paragraphs have been combined to save space): "In the 12 years since `A Nation At Risk' advocated tougher course requirements for high school graduation, states and students have responded dramatically. High school graduates are taking more courses overall, particularly academic courses. The proportion of students completing the recommended core courses in English, math, science, and social studies has increased, and a greater percentage is taking Advanced Placement (AP) courses.// In addition, more students are taking algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus as well as advanced science courses, including chemistry and physics...." "It is also encouraging to see these improvements in high school course taking reflected in gains in mathematics and science achievement. Between 1982 and 1992, the mathematics and science proficiency scores of 17-year-olds on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) increased (9 points on each assessment)...." "As a nation, we put great value on mathematics and science. Recently, this is evident in Goal 5 of the National Education Goals: `U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement.' Although, as noted above, the mathematics and science scores of U.S. students have increased since the early 1980s, they remain low compared to their counterparts in many other countries...."// "It is also worrisome that despite a narrowing in the white-minority gap in achievement during the 1980s, particularly in mathematics, recent data raise the possibility that the gap is no longer closing...." Other science trends noted in the report include: "In 1992, average science achievement was higher at all three age levels than in 1982.... In addition, the gap between male and female scores at ages 13 and 17 has decreased." "The number of bachelor's degrees earned in the science and engineering fields peaked in the mid-1980s, representing 22 percent of the total number of bachelor's degrees conferred in 1986. Since then, the number of science and engineering degrees conferred has fallen, reaching 16 percent of total bachelor's degrees conferred in 1992."// "The number of science and engineering master's and doctor's degrees conferred grew faster than the total number of master's and doctor's degrees between 1981 and 1992. However, in 1992, science and engineering master's and doctor's degrees made up approximately the same percentage of total degrees as they did in 1971." "The Condition of Education, 1995," NCES 95-273 (ISBN 0-16-048181-3) can be purchased from the Government Printing Office at (202) 512-1800. ##END########## From r_waide@upr1.upr.clu.edu Wed Aug 30 09:23:08 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11892; Wed, 30 Aug 95 09:23:07 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04020; 30 Aug 95 9:23 EDT Received: from UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23974; Wed, 30 Aug 95 06:20:51 PDT Received: from [] by UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU; Wed, 30 Aug 95 09:22 AST Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 09:26:41 - 240 From: r_waide Subject: Position Available To: pi@lternet.edu Reply-To: r_waide@upr1.upr.clu.edu Message-Id: Organization: Terrestrial Ecology X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) X-Envelope-To: pi@lternet.edu Comments: Authenticated sender is Priority: A Status: OR Please pass this on to possible candidates: RESEARCH ECOLOGIST, TENURE-TRACK, UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO. We are seeking an individual to serve as scientific director of the El Verde Field Station, one of two focal study sites in the Luquillo Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Program. The successful candidate will be expected to manage the field station and supervise its personnel, coordinate activities of visiting researchers, and develop a strong research program of his/her own. Area of research expertise is open but preference will be given to candidates studying invertebrate ecology. Preference will also be given to candidates with an ability to communicate in Spanish. Please provide curriculum vitae, statement of research interests, and names of three references by 1 October 1995 to: Robert B. Waide, Terrestrial Ecology Division, PO Box 363682, San Juan PR 00936. From indy@artemisia.cnr.colostate.edu Fri Sep 1 16:28:07 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA24547; Fri, 1 Sep 95 16:28:06 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab07588; 1 Sep 95 16:28 EDT Received: from artemisia (artemisia.CNR.ColoState.EDU) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21746; Fri, 1 Sep 95 13:20:18 PDT Received: from slip105x.SLIP.ColoState.EDU by artemisia (4.1/SMI-DDN) id AA17721; Fri, 1 Sep 95 14:19:15 MDT Date: Fri, 1 Sep 95 14:19:14 MDT Message-Id: <9509012019.AA17721@artemisia> X-Sender: indy@artemisia.cnr.colostate.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: pi@lternet.edu From: "Ingrid C. Burke" Subject: a role for the Chair in negotiating with your University Status: OR PI's: We wanted to report that Jim Gosz recently visited our site to help us with the initial stages of negotiating for overhead reduction and cost-sharing with our university. We met with all the administrative units that we are related to on campus, Deans, Department Heads, Director of the Experiment Station, and Vice President for REsearch. Jim talked with each about the natioanl and international significance of LTER, its status at NSF as a priority program, and made a few pitches for the important role that he saw our site as playing in the network. We followed Jim with a description of the local program and where we are going, and the scientists in that unit (we did it by College) talked about the role that LTER has played in supporting the mission of the College w/r to education, service, and research. It was alot of meetings! We felt as though it was a very useful day. Jim's stature as Chair and prior Division Director at NSF really provided a level of discussion about the uniqueness of LTER that we couldn't have achieved by ourselves. Of course, we'll know more about how successful we were when we get down to brass tacks here in a few weeks. This might be a really important role that the Chair can play in assisting us with our University relationships. Indy Burke and Bill Lauenroth From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Sep 1 20:43:50 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00622; Fri, 1 Sep 95 20:43:49 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02847; 1 Sep 95 20:43 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA25147; Fri, 1 Sep 95 17:42:34 PDT Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 17:42:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: FYI-Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force Report Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR An overview report of the U.S. Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force is now available online at the BENE Document Archive at URL: http://straylight.tamu.edu/bene/home/bene.docs.html The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems _and_ Sustainable Economies; Volume I - Overview; Report of the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force June 1995. This report has been almost 18 months in the making and could be viewed as the best thinking of the numerous federal agencies interested in ecosystem management. The co-chairs of the Interagency Ecosystem Management Working Group that produced the report were James Pipkin, Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior; and Diane Gelburd, Regional Conservationist for the East, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture. Although the report date is "June 1995," I first saw a printed copy two weeks ago. For those of you who lack Web access, send me an email and I will email the report to you as soon as I can; it will probably come in 5 parts since some of us have 32K limits. Volume II - Implementation Issues, and Volume III - Case Studies, are forthcoming. We'll seek to place them in the BENE archive soon after they're issued. Cheers, Steve Young young.steve@epamail.epa.gov From tudlm@ttacs1.ttu.edu Sat Sep 2 10:43:12 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01781; Sat, 2 Sep 95 10:43:08 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10087; 2 Sep 95 10:43 EDT Received: from TTACS1.TTU.EDU by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00613; Sat, 2 Sep 95 07:42:56 PDT Received: from [129.118.42.34] (bim408-3.bio.ttu.edu) by ttacs.ttu.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #8407) id <01HUSO7O03I88WYK7L@ttacs.ttu.edu>; Sat, 02 Sep 1995 09:42:23 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 1995 09:43:21 +0000 From: tudlm@ttacs1.ttu.edu Subject: Position Available To: in@"pi@lternet.edu" Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at uvaarpa.virginia.edu Message-Id: <01HUSO7OMQGI8WYK7L@ttacs.ttu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: ORS Dear Colleagues: The following advertisement is scheduled to appear in the September 8 issue of Science. Please distribute this information to all interested parties. PLANT PHYSIOLOGICAL ECOLOGIST: The Department of Biological Sciences at Texas Tech University invites applications for a tenure-track position at the ASSISTANT PROFESSOR level, to begin in August 1996. Applicants should have a PhD in Botany, Ecology or related field. Postdoctoral experience is preferred. The successful candidate will be expected to collaborate with existing faculty and to develop an extramurally-funded research program utilizing physiological methods to investigate ecological topics. Departmental research strengths include plant response to environmental stress, plant-microbe and plant-animal interactions, plant evolutionary genetics, community ecology, and ecosystem dynamics. Other responsibilities include directing graduate students, sharing introductory classes in botany, plant physiology or ecology, as well as developing an advanced course in plant physiological ecology. Applicants must send a curriculum vitae and statement of research and teaching interests, and have three letters of recommendation sent by October 25, 1995, to: Search Committee, Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131. Texas Tech University is an Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. In advance, thank you for your assistance in this matter. Daryl Moorhead Ecology Program Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131 (806) 742-1158 FAX: 742-2963 From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Sep 2 20:57:43 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02765; Sat, 2 Sep 95 20:57:42 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06915; 2 Sep 95 20:57 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04545; Sat, 2 Sep 95 17:56:12 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA15724; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 18:55:10 -0600 Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 18:55:10 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: "Ingrid C. Burke" Cc: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Re: a role for the Chair in negotiating with your University In-Reply-To: <9509012019.AA17721@artemisia> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This was a good experience for me as well. I would be willing to help other sites if this approach seems like it would work. jim On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, Ingrid C. Burke wrote: > PI's: > > We wanted to report that Jim Gosz recently visited our site to help us with > the initial stages of negotiating for overhead reduction and cost-sharing > with our university. We met with all the administrative units that we are > related to on campus, Deans, Department Heads, Director of the Experiment > Station, and Vice President for REsearch. Jim talked with each about the > natioanl and international significance of LTER, its status at NSF as a > priority program, and made a few pitches for the important role that he saw > our site as playing in the network. We followed Jim with a description of > the local program and where we are going, and the scientists in that unit > (we did it by College) talked about the role that LTER has played in > supporting the mission of the College w/r to education, service, and > research. It was alot of meetings! > > We felt as though it was a very useful day. Jim's stature as Chair and prior > Division Director at NSF really provided a level of discussion about the > uniqueness of LTER that we couldn't have achieved by ourselves. Of course, > we'll know more about how successful we were when we get down to brass tacks > here in a few weeks. > > This might be a really important role that the Chair can play in assisting > us with our University relationships. > > Indy Burke and Bill Lauenroth > > > > From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Sep 7 15:50:17 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17885; Thu, 7 Sep 95 15:50:15 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06177; 7 Sep 95 15:50 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06864; Thu, 7 Sep 95 12:46:54 PDT Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: FYI, New contact info--U.S. Global Change Program Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR PLEASE NOTE NEW OFFICE NUMBERS Anthony D. Socci, Ph.D. Program Associate Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 300 D Street, SW, Suite 840 Washington, DC 20024 Tel: (202) 651-8244 Fax: (202) 554-6715 E-mail: tsocci@usgcrp.gov World Wide Web Address: http://www.usgcrp.gov/ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Sep 9 11:15:02 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA24070; Sat, 9 Sep 95 11:15:00 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21224; 9 Sep 95 11:14 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26986; Sat, 9 Sep 95 08:13:28 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06782; Sat, 9 Sep 1995 09:12:30 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01717; Sat, 9 Sep 1995 09:05:58 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 09:05:57 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #125 - Commerce Department bills (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 125: September 8, 1995 Action Continues on Fate of Commerce Department Since returning to work after Labor Day, Congress has focused a lot of attention on the Department of Commerce. Authorizing committees in both the House and Senate debated the fate of the department, while the Senate Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its funding bill. While the Budget Resolution passed this spring called for abolishment of the Commerce Department, the House provided funding for the department in its FY 1996 Commerce appropriations bill, albeit at a reduced level (see FYI #103). However, the department is not out of danger in the House. Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) has promised Republican freshman that a floor vote will be held on some version of a proposal to abolish Commerce, either as a stand-alone bill, or possibly as part of the reconciliation bill Congress needs to pass this fall to provide details on how to reach their Budget Resolution goals. Proposals have been floated in both chambers to do away with the department. On September 6, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Management heard from Rep. Dick Chrysler (R-MI), sponsor of H.R. 1756, a bill to abolish the department, followed by testimony from Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. While Chrysler claimed his bill would save approximately $7.7 billion over five years, Brown charged that this estimate contained errors and did not include the costs associated with terminating or transferring programs, or the cost of the next census. Brown claimed that Chrysler's proposal would actually cost taxpayers an additional $1.542 billion. Members of the subcommittee expressed mixed feelings about the proposal. Tom Davis (R-VA), argued that the goal should be to save taxpayers money. "We need to be sure it's being done smartly," he said, and "I'm not sure I'm in total agreement" with the bill's provisions. Charles Bass (R-NH) reported that he had "yet to receive any significant amount of mail...from people who say they can't live without" the department. Brown stated at the hearing, and reiterated at a Commerce Department briefing later the same day, that Chrysler's bill "demonstrates no real savings." At the briefing he added that the department has data "we're very confident in" that shows a net cost to the taxpayer. Brown also pointed out that the House Commerce Appropriations bill "demonstrates that savings are possible without dismembering the department," (although he criticized the appropriations bill for its elimination of NIST's Advanced Technology Program.) He claimed that doing away with the technology-assistance programs would "result in something tantamount to unilateral disarmament" in global economic competition. If the Chrysler bill just transferred some of Commerce's functions, Brown said, "someone help me understand how that makes government work better?" In his briefing, Brown stressed comments made by subcommittee members about input from constituents: "You're the ones who can deliver the message much more effectively than we can." Yesterday, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee marked up S. 929, a Senate proposal to abolish the Commerce Department. The committee chairman, William Roth (R-DE), proposed a bill that would first eliminate the Commerce Department, then establish a bipartisan commission to look at downsizing the rest of the Executive Branch. Ranking Minority Member John Glenn (D-OH) charged that Roth's bill was "going to eliminate a department, then going to study whether we should have done it or not." Carl Levin (D-MI) compared it to saying "ready, fire, then aim." Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) supported Commerce's technology programs, saying they were not a way for the private sector to "ride on the back of government, [but] a way for government to ride on the back of the private sector..." and to leverage private investment, particularly in sectors like defense, "where the government used to pay it all and can no longer afford to do so." William Cohen from Maine, a Republican, praised Secretary Brown and said that while he supported bringing the bill to the Senate floor, he hoped to see some changes. Glenn offered an amendment to establish a commission without first abolishing Commerce. His amendment was voted down 6-8, with Roth arguing that it is important to the public "that we take action" now. A number of additional Democratic amendments also failed, and Roth's bill passed on a 5-3 vote. Also yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for funding the Commerce Department marked up its FY 1996 bill. The version offered by subcommittee chair Phil Gramm (R-TX), while not abolishing the department, would have cut its programs significantly. However, full committee chairman Mark Hatfield (R-OR), concerned about the bill's ability to pass his committee and veto threats by President Clinton, proposed a substitute version that restored $76 million for ATP, as well as funding for the Economic Development Administration and other programs. Hatfield's alternate passed, with Gramm the only subcommittee member voting against it. The Commerce Appropriation bill is scheduled to go to the full Appropriations Committee on September 12. ##END########## From r_waide@upr1.upr.clu.edu Mon Sep 11 18:06:09 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00635; Mon, 11 Sep 95 18:06:06 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab15723; 11 Sep 95 18:06 EDT Received: from UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10574; Mon, 11 Sep 95 15:02:57 PDT Received: from [] by UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU; Mon, 11 Sep 95 17:26 AST Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 17:30:34 - 240 From: r_waide Subject: Biodiversity workshop To: pi@lternet.edu Reply-To: r_waide@upr1.upr.clu.edu Message-Id: <9C0BD5D5F05F214C7D@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU> Organization: Terrestrial Ecology X-Confirm-Reading-To: r_waide X-Pmrqc: 1 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) X-Envelope-To: pi@lternet.edu Comments: Authenticated sender is Priority: A Status: OR To All LTER PIs: RE: Biodiversity Workshop David Tilman and I have been working on the biodiversity workshop to be held in conjunction with the Cedar Creek Coordinating Committee meeting. Although we still have many organizational details to be worked out, the general form of the workshop has taken shape. We hope to have a series of short presentations from each site, several more detailed case studies, and a compilation of species lists from each site. We anticipate that the workshop will result in one or more publications, and you should choose the person to represent your site with this in mind. We need the following for each site: 1. Please let us know who will represent your site and give the presentation. This could be one of the PIs, but since this is an expanded CC meeting, you could also invite someone with specific interests in biodiversity. Sites will pay the travel of these representatives. 2. Each speaker will have 10 minutes to summarize biodiversity research at their site. We recognize that this is very little time, but the schedule will not allow for more. Each speaker should prepare a written summary as well to be used in a network publication. This summary should be no more than 5 pages single-spaced (plus figures and tables). We would like for you to bring this document to the meeting in final form. 3. We would like suggestions about appropriate case studies. These case studies will be presented during 20-30 minute talks, and written versions will form the basis for a Bioscience-like essay. We are looking for clear stories such as the drought/diversity work conducted at Cedar Creek. Probably no more than three or four of these can be accommodated in the workshop schedule, but more may be included in the publication. 4. Jack Lattin and I have been accumulating species lists from sites over the past several months. I will be in contact with those sites that still owe us information. I appreciate your cooperation in this endeavor. 5. Finally, the workshop will include an open forum to discuss the issue of LTER's role in the study of biodiversity. I would appreciate it if you could brainstorm with your scientists so that we can have input from as wide a group as possible for the meeting. The key issue here is what is unique about LTER that allows us to make a contribution to understanding the origin, maintenance, conservation, and importance of biodiversity. This discussion is an ideal follow-up to the 23-27 September Global Change in Terrestrial Ecosystems Workshop (also to be held at Cedar Creek) that is designed to formulate an international plan for cooperative research on biodiversity and ecosystem function. We could and should be major players in this endeavor, and there appears to be new support available for this. I thank you very much for your help and look forward to your prompt response. Bob From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Sep 14 13:22:56 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA22552; Thu, 14 Sep 95 13:22:55 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21407; 14 Sep 95 13:22 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01054; Thu, 14 Sep 95 10:13:53 PDT Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 10:13:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: U.S.-States of Former Soviet Union Collaboration Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORS Mary E. Hanson September 14, 1995 (703) 306-1070 NSF PR 95-60 NEW FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN U.S. AND STATES OF FORMER SOVIET UNION A unique public-private partnership to strengthen scientific and technological collaboration between the U.S. and the states of the former Soviet Union has begun its work with a first meeting to set priorities and policies. The board of directors of the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (CRDF) held its first meeting September 13-14 at the National Science Foundation. The CRDF was announced by President Clinton May 10 in Moscow, and established by the National Science Foundation under a congressional authorization. The CRDF is funded by a $5 million gift to NSF from philanthropist George Soros and a $5 million matching contribution from the Department of Defense. This initial $10 million fund will support basic and applied research efforts, and promote defense conversion and development of market economies in the countries of the Former Soviet Union. All research proposals funded by CRDF will be selected competitively through merit review. "The scientific community of the Former Soviet Union is one of the world's great scientific resources, but it is a community in crisis," said Gerson Sher of NSF's division of international programs. "Its resources are vastly inadequate. By continuing to identify and support collaborations with the leading researchers, we will help preserve this resource for the benefit of the American and worldwide scientific communities." At its September meeting, the CRDF Board of Directors agreed to commit the majority of the $10 million during the first year of operations (1995-96) through competitive grants for cooperative research proposals between U.S. scientists and engineers and their counterparts in the Former Soviet Union. The board expects to announce specific plans and guidelines for a basic research competition within the next month. Despite being congressionally authorized and partially publicly funded, the CRDF is not an agency of the U.S. government. Authorizing legislation enables the foundation to accept donations from public and private sources, both foreign and domestic. -end- Attachment: Fact Sheet (including list of board members) Press releases and other information are now available electronically on NSFnews, a free service available via the Internet. To subscribe to NSFnews send an e-mail message to listmanager@nsf.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject line) type the words subscribe nsfnews and then type your name (not an e-mail address). For example: Subscribe nsfnews James Smith. The system will reply with a confirmation via e-mail. For additional information about NSFnews send another e-mail message to listmanager@nsf.gov and in the body of the message type the word help. For information on NSF PR 95-60, contact Tom Owens, International Division at (703) 306-1709. FACT SHEET U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation for theIndependent States of the Former Soviet Union contact: Mary Hanson, Public Affairs (703) 306-1070/e-mail: mhanson@nsf.gov - The U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (CRDF) is a unique public-private partnership to support cooperative research between U.S. scientists and engineers and their counterparts in the former Soviet Union. - The creation of the CRDF was announced by President Clinton at the May 1995 summit meeting in Moscow, as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen scientific and technological collaboration between the U.S. and the countries of the former Soviet Union. - The CRDF has an initial budget of $10 million, including a $5 million gift to the National Science Foundation (NSF) from philanthropist George Soros and a $5 million matching contribution from the Department of Defenses (DOD) Nunn-Lugar funds. - The mission of the CRDF is to fund basic and applied research conducted in the countries of the former Soviet Union, and to promote defense conversion and development of market economies in the region. - Despite being congressionally authorized and publicly funded, the CRDF is not an agency of the U.S. Government. Authorizing legislation enables the foundation to accept donations from public and private sources, both foreign and domestic. The same legislation specified that the NSF director should establish the foundation. - The National Science Board -- NSF's policy-making arm -- approved the plans for the CRDF in June 1995. The CRDF Board of Directors held its first meeting to set priorities and policies September 13 -14, 1995 at the National Science Foundation. - The CRDF expects to begin accepting research proposals in October/November for basic research collaborations. A program to support applied research proposals will be announced soon. All research proposals will be subjected to competitive merit review. - Soros is head of the New York City-based Soros Foundation, which has previously provided millions of dollars in research support to similar ventures in the former Soviet Union. - The authorizing legislation for the CRDF was initially proposed by Rep. George Brown, then-chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Then- Sen. Albert Gore co-sponsored the bill. - Conceptualization of the initial charter for the CRDF began more than two years ago as a joint effort between NSF and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Since then, the DOD, the Department of State, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Soros Foundation have joined in the effort to make the CRDF a reality. Members of the CRDF Board of Directors are: Dr. Peter Raven - Missouri Botanical Garden (chair) Dr. Gloria C. Duffy - Stanford University Dr. Roald Hoffmann - Cornell University Dr. Evelyn L. Hu - University of California at Santa Barbara Mr. John W. Kiser - Kiser Research, Inc. Dr. Donald Langenberg - University of Maryland Dr. John Moore - George Mason University COL John F. O'Neil, U.S. Marine Corps, Ret. Dr. Marjorie Senechal - Smith College Dr. Albert R.C. Westwood - Sandia NationalLaboratories Revised: September 14, 1995 From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Sep 18 11:46:30 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14071; Mon, 18 Sep 95 11:46:28 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01025; 18 Sep 95 11:46 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26655; Mon, 18 Sep 95 08:42:42 PDT Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 08:42:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: FYI: Babbitt Release on Young/Pombo rewrite of ESA (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR > > OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY > > For release September 7, 1995 Megan Durham (202) 208-5650 > > STATEMENT BY SECRETARY BRUCE BABBITT ON THE > "ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1995" > > > > I hope the American people will not be misled by the title of the > legislation proposed today by some House Republicans. Despite its > rhetoric, this bill does not protect endangered species. Instead it > sets up costly bureaucratic procedures to avoid protecting endangered > wildlife. This bill would effectively repeal the Endangered Species > Act. > > If Noah had to follow all the rules in this bill, he wouldn't have > needed an ark. He could have fit all the animals he was allowed to > save in a canoe. > > To touch on just a few key points of the proposed legislation and how > they are likely to impact endangered species, this bill: > > * Removes most requirements for Federal agencies to help protect and > conserve endangered species on Federal lands and under Federal > programs. The fact is that the actions of Federal agencies are > critical to the survival and recovery of endangered species. > > * Weakens protection for endangered species in foreign countries. > The fact is this abrogates our international relationships and > potentially weakens protection for such species as tigers, rhinos, > parrots, and many others. > > * Severely weakens protection for endangered species habitat by > placing the bulk of responsibility for protecting endangered > species on a limited number of biological diversity reserves on > national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. It would > bar biological diversity conservation activities on other Federal > lands such as non- wilderness national forests and public lands of > the Bureau of Land Management. The fact is that these biodiversity > reserves by themselves will be inadequate to save endangered > species. > > * Exempts dams, hydroplants, irrigation projects and other > water-related rights from any responsibility under the Endangered > Species Act. The fact is that how we manage water is a key factor > in conserving many endangered species. This provision is more bad > news for salmon and a wide variety of other species. > > * Leaves species virtually unprotected between the time they are > listed and the time a conservation plan is completed. The fact is > that during this time the species is vulnerable to destruction of > its habitat and "incidental take" from a variety of activities. > > * Establishes complicated and expensive procedures for compensating > private landowners that appear to have been devised simply to > bring protection of endangered species on private land to a > grinding halt. > > > > This Administration has taken a number of steps to improve > implementation of the Endangered Species Act and to make it work > better for private landowners. We support a strong Endangered Species > Act and are continuing to work with concerned lawmakers on both sides > of the aisle who share our desire to refine and improve the Act. > > -DOI- > > _________________________________________________________________ > > From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Sep 25 14:24:10 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19775; Mon, 25 Sep 95 14:24:08 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11625; 25 Sep 95 14:24 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05880; Mon, 25 Sep 95 11:19:42 PDT Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 11:19:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin To: pi@lternet.washington.edu Subject: FYI--VP GORE'S STATEMENT ON INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF THE PRESS SECRETARY _________________________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: 202/456-7035 Friday, September 22, 1995 Statement of the Vice President If Congress sends the President the fiscal 1996 Interior Appropriations Bill as approved by the conference committee, he will veto it. This bill takes dead aim on this Nation's most cherished natural resources, and will benefit special interests at the expense of taxpayers. It also unfairly and inappropriately targets programs for Native Americans. Interior Secretary Babbitt, Budget Director Rivlin, and other senior Administration officials worked tirelessly to turn this bill around as it moved through the legislative process -- but to no avail. Since the bill does not include the Administration-proposed moratorium on hardrock mining patents, it gives away billions of dollars in Federally-owned land and mineral deposits to a single industry. The bill would allow logging to occur in some of the most environmentally-sensitive areas of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. This bill also includes a sneak attack on the newest addition to the National Park System, California's incomparable Mojave National Preserve, by transferring funding and responsibility for the Preserve from the National Park Service to the Bureau of Land Management, and undermining implementation of the 1994 California Desert Protection Act. In addition, the bill would cut 47 percent from the President's request for energy conservation and efficiency programs that would save more oil than could be obtained by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Congress also wants to block an important project that will allow a sustainable flow of timber from the interior Columbia River basin and end the harmful, counterproductive species-by-species crisis management that has characterized the federal government's land use decisions in this region for years. This shortsighted action would threaten the protection of salmon and other endangered species, and would guarantee more court battles and legal gridlock. It's a great day for the lawyers and lobbyists, a terrible day for all of us. Finally, the bill would cut 18 percent, or $348 million, from the President's request, and $160 million from the 1995 level, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs whose programs serve Indian children, the elderly, and tribal governments, reversing the Administration's progress toward tribal self- determination and self-governance and impeding our capacity to fulfill our responsibilities to educate Indian children. These are only a few of the most egregious examples of the damage this bill would do to our natural resources and to Native Americans. For these reasons and others, Congress should begin anew and send the President a bill that truly serves the American people. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Sep 26 16:53:06 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA24523; Tue, 26 Sep 95 16:53:00 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04751; 26 Sep 95 16:52 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17914; Tue, 26 Sep 95 13:49:12 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02774; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 14:48:17 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00891; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 14:41:38 -0600 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 14:41:37 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #132 - Ozone Hearing (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 132: September 26, 1995 Representatives Question Science Behind CFC Phaseout One item on the agenda of the congressional majority is reducing federal regulations, including some related to environmental protection. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX), and fellow Representative John Doolittle (R-CA), have recently introduced bills that would attempt to slow down or eliminate the planned phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) set for the end of this year, as dictated by the Copenhagen amendment to the Montreal Protocol. The two bills were discussed at a September 20 hearing of the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. The hearing was chaired by Dana Rohrabacher (R-FL), who has called the theory of global warming "at worst...liberal clap trap." It was the first in a series of oversight hearings to examine how scientific research is used to formulate federal policies and regulations. Supporting Rohrabacher's intention to "hear from both sides equally," the hearing featured both proponents and opponents of the 1995 CFC ban, and included representatives of atmospheric and environmental sciences, astrophysics, immunology, and biophysics, as well as industry and government agencies. Witnesses reviewed the scientific evidence for causal relationships between anthropogenic increases of CFCs, stratospheric ozone depletion, increased ultraviolet-B radiation reaching the Earth's surface, and adverse health effects. Rohrabacher focused mainly on the scientific justification for the U.S.'s 1992 decision to speed up the date of the phaseout from January 1, 2000, as dictated by the original Montreal Protocol, to the end of 1995. The international community followed the U.S. by agreeing in November of 1992 to move up the phaseout date. Rohrabacher charged, as did DeLay and Doolittle, that the impetus for the U.S.'s accelerated deadline was a February 1992 NASA press release that predicted a possible ozone hole over the Northern Hemisphere. They claimed the warning was faulty and based on environmentalist scare tactics. They also considered the evidence for the ban questionable, discounted the scientific consensus behind the policy, and expressed concerns that opposing views were being suppressed. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) noted, though, that policy-makers had to "go with the best available science at the time," and John Olver (D-MA) added that if Congress waited until the evidence was certain, "we may be left with something irreversible." Witness Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project asserted that "there is no scientific consensus on ozone depletion" and charged that the international scientific community ignored "contrary evidence and dissenting views." He argued that the accelerated phaseout was based "on nothing more than a highly questionable and widely criticized NASA press conference," and called it deplorable that "policy is being made by press release." Robert Watson, OSTP Associate Director of Environment and a co-chair of the International Ozone Assessment Science Panel, defended the science underlying the policy: "Hundreds of scientists, from developed and developing countries, some of whom were at one time skeptics, have been involved in the preparation and peer-review of each of a series of international scientific assessments conducted under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization [WMO] and the United Nations Environment Programme." Watson refuted claims that the phaseout was accelerated primarily because of media hype surrounding the NASA press release. He pointed out that the release was not in error, and added that the international scientific community was unlikely to be swayed by such a media event. Watson also countered the charge that contradictory data was ignored. He reported that many participants, including industry representatives and the then-Soviet Union, were originally skeptical of the issue, but evolved into "key players" after their scientists became involved in the assessments. Watson's contention was supported by Kevin Fay of the 250-member industry Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Fay admitted that "in 1980 we believed that rigorous scientific analysis would eventually disprove" the theory, but on the basis of participation in the 1986 WMO assessment, "industry representatives came to the conclusion that the potential existed for serious and unacceptable future environmental risks, if CFC growth continued..." However, Sallie Baliunas of the George C. Marshall Institute testified that she had personally been discouraged from working in areas that might contradict the accepted theory. Rohrabacher called that the "most serious thing" to come out of the hearing, and promised further investigation of the issue. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Sep 29 18:53:25 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07007; Fri, 29 Sep 95 18:53:24 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19424; 29 Sep 95 18:53 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17308; Fri, 29 Sep 95 15:40:40 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA22036; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 16:39:43 -0600 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 16:39:43 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #135 - Train Wreck Postponed (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 135: September 29, 1995 Train Wreck Postponed for Six Weeks It only took the House of Representatives 34 minutes yesterday to agree to a stopgap funding bill that will avoid this Sunday's scheduled train wreck between the Congress and the Administration over spending for fiscal year 1996. Under this continuing resolution six weeks of additional funding will be provided to keep the federal government from closing down when the new fiscal year starts on October 1. This resolution, which should be taken up the Senate today or tomorrow, will fund government operations until November 13. The impact that it will have on agencies differs according to where that agency's budget is in the appropriations process. For those agencies or departments where both the House and Senate have passed an appropriations bill, program funding would be midway between both levels, less five percent. (This would be the case for the Department of Energy, NSF, and NASA, and perhaps the Department of Commerce if the Senate finishes work on its appropriations bill today.) If only one chamber has passed its version of an appropriations bill, the new level will be the lower of either that amount or its current year budget. In some cases, the administration will be allowed to spend at a rate of 90 percent of the current budget if the level otherwise set by the above formulas would result in a "significantly reduced" program. Only two appropriations bills have cleared Congress and been sent to the President: the legislative branch appropriation and that for military construction. Here is a brief run-down on the status of other appropriations bill followed by FYI: ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT: Latest information indicates that the House and Senate conferees have not agreed on a final version of H.R. 1905, which funds the physics-related programs of the Department of Energy. VA, HUD, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES: The Senate finished on Wednesday its consideration of H.R. 2099, which funds NSF and NASA. Senator Dale Bumpers (D-Arkansas) offered an amendment to terminate the space station, which was rejected by a vote of 35-64. This was Bumpers' sixth annual attempt to terminate the station. Earlier this year the House voted against a similar amendment. For the record, last year's Senate vote against the station was 36-64. No changes were apparently made by the full Senate from the appropriations committee recommendations for NSF and NASA (see FYIs #127 and 128.) This bill, which as it now stands is almost certain to be vetoed, now goes to a House/Senate conference. COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE: H.R. 2076 has been passed by the House, and is now under consideration by the Senate. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: The stop-gap funding bill has no effect on OTA. OTA is closing today, with only enough money being provided for severance pay allowing a few remaining projects to be completed. ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Oct 2 14:09:22 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04944; Mon, 2 Oct 95 14:09:21 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25652; 2 Oct 95 14:09 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15255; Mon, 2 Oct 95 11:06:55 PDT Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 11:06:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: epi@lternet.edu Subject: Nat'l Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR For Program information contact: Neal Tate, SBE/SBER (703) 306-1762 Media contact: Mary E. Hanson October 2, 1995 (703) 306-1070 NSF PR 95-66 NEW RESEARCH CENTER TO IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING The National Science Foundation has announced the award of $5 million to the Joint Institute for Energy and Environment (JIEE) of the University of Tennessee to create a National Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research. The center is intended to improve the environmental decision-making process in both the public and private sectors by making scientific environmental research more relevant and useful to decision makers. "Public support for protecting the environment continues to be strong, and there is widespread agreement that past environmental legislation and regulation have been effective in correcting and preventing environmental problems," said Bill Butz, NSF's division director for social, behavioral and economic research. "At the same time, both critics and supporters of past policy are struggling to define new directions for environmental policy that will be effective, but less burdensome and more affordable. This center will be an important resource in this ongoing process." The award to JIEE -- a collaboration of the University of Tennessee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Tennessee Valley Authority -- is for $1 million per year for up to five years. The center will be directed by environmental analyst Milton Russell, head of the JIEE and a former assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Russell will lead interdisciplinary research teams representing economics, urban planning, policy analysis, sociology, geography, mathematics, ecology, psychology, political science and computer science. The teams will synthesize existing research, perform case studies, assemble a "toolkit" of processes and techniques, and design an information system for decisionmakers. The center will increase understanding of how environmental decisions are made. "Public, not-for-profit and private organizations regularly make decisions that affect and are affected by the environment," explained Butz. "We need to understand better the processes that produce these decisions, and thus learn how to encourage the desirable ones. This coordinated, multidisciplinary and long-term research effort can help answer that need." -end- Press releases and other information are now available electronically on NSFnews, a free service available via the Internet. To subscribe to NSFnews send an e-mail message to listmanager@nsf.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject line) type the words "subscribe nsfnews" and then type your name (not an e-mail address). For example: Subscribe nsfnews James Smith. The system will reply with a confirmation via e-mail. For additional information about NSFnews send another e-mail message to listmanager@nsf.gov and in the body of the message type the word "help". From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Oct 5 17:30:04 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA00968; Thu, 5 Oct 95 17:30:03 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02838; 5 Oct 95 17:30 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA29291; Thu, 5 Oct 95 14:24:33 PDT Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 14:24:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: epi@lternet.edu Cc: jBriggs@lternet.edu Subject: Konza Prairie Annual Workshop, Nov 11 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs: I was unable to fit the information below in the newsletter calendar this issue. Please excuse any duplicate postings. Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> The Seventh Annual Konza Prairie LTER Workshop is scheduled for the 11th of November, 1995. For more details contact John M. Briggs (913) 532-6629 or jmb@unix.konza.ksu.edu. From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Oct 12 11:45:07 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23316; Thu, 12 Oct 95 11:45:05 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab14579; 12 Oct 95 11:45 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22888; Thu, 12 Oct 95 08:42:03 PDT Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:42:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: epi@lternet.edu Subject: Letter to Rep. Young from Orians & Others (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORS Please delete if you have received this from other sources. >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> This message was distributed through ESANEWS, the mailing list for the public affairs office of the Ecological Society of America. Joy Winckel c7gap@ttacs.ttu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:54:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Esa Headquarters To: Multiple recipients of list ESANEWS Subject: Letter to Rep. Young from Orians & Others The attached letter was released this morning as part of a press briefing held on the Hill by the Endangered Species Coalition. ------------------- YPOMBO.DOS follows -------------------- OPEN LETTER FROM LEADERS OF SCIENTIFIC PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES The Honorable Don Young United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 October 10, 1995 Dear Representative Young: As scientists who study ecology, botany, and zoology, and as leaders of professional scientific organizations, we believe that any law or policy to protect endangered species should be firmly based on sound science. In that context, we must express our strong disappointment with H.R. 2275, the "Endangered Species Conservation and Management Act of 1995." This bill to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act is so riddled with scientific errors and misstatements as to be indefensible. Space does not permit us to list all of our concerns with H.R. 2275. Some of the more egregious failings of the bill include the following: --The redefinition of "harm" essentially cripples the Act's ability to protect the habitats of endangered species. Yet habitat loss is far and away the most significant factor driving species toward extinction. According to a 1994 study, more than 95% of U.S. endangered species are imperiled at least in part by habitat loss or alteration. (See C.H. Flather, L.A. Joyce, and C.A. Bloomgarden. 1994. Species Endangerment Patterns in the United States. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-241. Ft. Collins, CO). --The bill completely ignores the recommendations of a 1995 report from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, entitled "Science and the Endangered Species Act." This report, prepared by a panel convened by the nation's most prestigious scientific body, reflected literally years of deliberation on the scientific issues underlying the Endangered Species Act. --The bill relies heavily on captive propagation as a means of rescuing endangered species, despite abundant evidence that such steps are often expensive and unsuccessful. More importantly, captive propagation alone does not address the fundamental threat to most species, which is the loss or degradation of their habitats. An identical argument can be made about the bill's heavy reliance on hatcheries for saving imperiled fish. --As scientists, all of us are very familiar with and supportive of the peer review process. But the so-called "peer review" process for listing species in H.R. 2275 is a cumbersome and overly complex caricature of the scientific one. Its effect would be to delay needlessly the listing of disappearing species, rather than increase the scientific rigor of those decisions. In a similar vein, the rigorous standards that must be met before a species is listed do not apply to the removal of a species from the endangered species list, a distinction without scientific basis. --The bill requires those charged with preparing conservation plans for listed species to assess the "biological significance" of each species. "Biological significance" is so vague a term as to be essentially meaningless. Scientists can often identify the roles that particular species play within ecosystems, but they cannot assess the biological significance of a species. --Despite its impressive-sounding name, the National Biological Diversity Reserve created by this bill provides virtually no protection to biodiversity beyond those measures already in place. This stems from the fact that only lands within the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wilderness Preservation System, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System are eligible for inclusion, and these lands are already protected from most harmful activities. At the same time, the bill weakens efforts to protect biodiversity on the federal lands falling outside the so-called National Biological Diversity Reserve. The conservation of endangered species is a complex and difficult task. Economic and social consideration inevitably--and rightfully--play a significant role in determining national policy. So too must science, for it is an essential part of the task. Unfortunately, H.R. 2275 reflects an almost complete lack of scientific understanding. Sincerely, Rita Colwell President American Association for the Advancement of Science Diana Freckman Past President American Institute of Biological Sciences Simon Levin Past President Ecological Society of America Gene Likens Past President Ecological Society of America Jane Lubchenco President-Elect American Association for the Advancement of Science Past President Ecological Society of America Harold Mooney Past President American Institute of Biological Sciences Judith Meyer Past President Ecological Society of America Gordon Orians President Ecological Society of America Paul Risser Past President American Institute of Biological Sciences Past President Ecological Society of America ------------ End Forwarded Message ------------- From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Oct 23 17:19:43 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05362; Mon, 23 Oct 95 17:19:42 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11773; 23 Oct 95 17:19 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18139; Mon, 23 Oct 95 14:10:41 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19499; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 15:09:56 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01111; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 15:03:03 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 15:03:02 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: net@lternet.edu, scollins@nsf.gov Subject: Workshop Proposals Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR At the recent CC meeting at Cedar Creek, the Exec. and Coordinating Committee adopted a policy on the selection of workshop proposals for funding by the Network Office. We anticipate funding for 1 or 2 workshops in 1996 depending on budget and workshop costs. The following procedure should be followed by individuals requesting LTER Network Office workshop support: *The proposal should be a consortium proposal from at least 3 sites for a workshop topic. This infers that it is a topic that at least 3 sites agree on as a high priority topic. Proposal length is limited to 3 pages. *All sites should be informed of the consortium proposal (before submission) to alert the Network of the intent as well as to identify possible participation. *There should be a data survey performed, if appropriate, to identify relevant data sets across sites that could be utilized in a successful workshop. *Products from the workshop should be identified (e.g., new proposal, book volume). *The proposal will be submitted to the Exec. Committee (via the Chair) and formally presented at the next LTER/CC meeting for discussion. *Final decision will be made by the Exec. Committee. This is the formal process that will take place, primarily for funds that may be available starting in 1997. Given that the Network Office anticipates some money for a workshop(s) in its 1996 budget, the process must be shortened for this next year. Thus, proposals for funding in 1996 should be sent to Jim Gosz by Dec. 15, 1995. Electronic submission is preferred. He will distribute them to the Exec. Comm. to review at the Jan. 1996 meeting in Washington, D.C. Proposers will be notified immediately thereafter. Delaying this decision until after the next CC meeting in April will not allow sufficient time to plan and hold the workshop in 1996. If the process is not clear please let me know and I will try to add detail. Jim Gosz From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Oct 24 18:06:13 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09871; Tue, 24 Oct 95 18:06:12 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa22477; 24 Oct 95 18:06 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03845; Tue, 24 Oct 95 14:59:40 PDT Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:59:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF PR 95-62 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 10:21:52 -0400 From: medwards@nsf.gov To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: NSF PR 95-62 Media only contact: Njuguna Kabugi October 23, 1995 (703) 306-1070 NSF PR 95-62 nkabugi@nsf.gov All others contact: Margrete Klein (703) 306-1697 mklein@nsf.gov ADVANCED RESEARCH AWARDS INCREASE VISIBILITY OF ACTIVE WOMEN SCIENTISTS 25 New Visiting Professorships Announced For Fiscal Year 1995 As part of an ongoing effort to help women overcome hurdles in science and engineering, the National Science Foundation has granted 25 new professorship awards under its Visiting Professorships for Women (VPW) program. The VPW program gives experienced female scientists and engineers the opportunity to conduct advanced research at academic institutions of their choice, where they have access to the top scientists in their fields and the most advanced research facilities in the country. The award provides funding for travel to the host institution, basic research expenses, and salary for a period of six to 15 months. Since 1982, nearly than 350 women have received VPW awards. The recipients of this year's awards, which total about $ 3.21 million, are geographically distributed across 15 states and represent 16 scientific fields. The VPW program is one of several NSF programs that address underrepresentation of women. In 1992, women constituted 45 percent of all workers in the U.S. but only 18 percent of the science and engineering work force. Underrepresentation varies by field; for example, according to Science and Engineering Indicators, women comprised 30 percent of all chemists but only 11 percent of all geologists in 1992. The same year, they comprised only nine percent of working engineers. During a recent evaluation of the program, awardees who were asked to rate the impact of VPW reported that they spent nearly twice as much time on research during VPW as they did at their home institutions, and that their professional careers had benefited greatly. Ninety percent or more of awardees surveyed reported that the program had a positive impact on their research programs, professional development, and scientific reputation. "The VPW award brings three important resources to bear on an awardee's research program: protected time to focus on research, high-quality colleagues with whom to exchange ideas and collaborate, and premier research facilities," said Margrete S. Klein, who manages the VPW program for NSF. "This combination goes a long way toward eliminating the unique set of hurdles that women face in entering, persisting and succeeding in science and engineering." However, some of those hurdles are more difficult to pinpoint than a lack of access to colleagues and facilities, Klein added. For that reason, role modeling is also a key component of the VPW program. In addition to conducting their research, awardees are expected to spend about 30 percent of their time interacting with students -- lecturing, mentoring and working together on research. "When a female science or engineering student meets a working scientist or engineer who is also female, she is less likely to give up on her field of study when things get frustrating," said Klein. "Attrition of women from science and engineering study programs is still much higher than that of men. The VPW program helps experienced female researchers reach their long-term career goals, while also helping those who aspire to follow her to keep their career goals on track." -end- Attached: List of FY95 VPW Awards VISITING PROFESSORSHIPS FOR WOMEN 1995 AWARDEES NAME HOME INSTITUTION HOST INSTITUTION Bachman, Gwendolyn Univ. of CA/Los Angeles Univ. of Oklahoma Baldridge, Kim S.D. Supercomputer Ctr Univ. of CA/San Diego Bjornerud, Marcia Miami University Michigan Tech. Univ. Clark, Beth E. Univ. of Texas/Austin Univ. of Arizona Demers, Cornelia E. Worcester Polytechnic Inst. GA Inst. of Tech. Droser, Mary L. University of CA/Riverside Univ. of Cincinnati Eberly, Janice University of Pennsylvania Harvard Univ. Eisner, Wendy Ohio State Univ. Univ. of Alaska/Anchorage Fomenkova, Marina NASA/Ames Research Ctr Univ. of CA/San Diego Lillard, Angelina S. Univ. of San Francisco Univ. of CA/Berkeley Liuti, Simonetta Univ. of Virginia College of William and Mary McBride, Patricia Fermilab Princeton University Mihail, Milena Bell Communications Research Columbia Univ. Palmer, Joyce E. Smith College University of Mass./Amherst Phillips, Ruth Univ. of Wisconsin/Milwaukee Univ. of Washington Rapoport, Natalya University of Utah Brigham Young University Roat, Rosette M. Washington College Virginia Commonwealth Univ. Rubinfeld, Ronitt Cornell University MIT Sadosky, Cora Howard University Univ. of CA/Berkeley Sutton, Ann Cold Spring Harbor Lab SUNY/Stony Brook Trajkovic, Ljiljana Bell Communications Rsch Univ. - CA/Berkeley Vernon, Mary K. Univ. of Wisconsin/Madison Univ. of Washington Waldeck, Janet R. Pennsylvania State Univ. Univ. of Pittsburgh Yemane, Keddy University of Pennsylvania Univ. of Pennsylvania Zhang, Hong Clemson University Louisiana State University From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Oct 26 10:55:20 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16154; Thu, 26 Oct 95 10:55:18 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15931; 26 Oct 95 10:55 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05265; Thu, 26 Oct 95 07:37:16 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28936; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:34:50 -0600 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:34:50 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: Univ. Health discussion Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR PCAST Reviews Accomplishments, Looks to Future The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) met on October 23-24 to take stock of their activities in light of the current budget situation and its implications for science and technology. The committee reviewed its progress on a number of fronts, and considered issues to focus on for its remaining tenure. In the past year, PCAST panels have studied a number of issues; current efforts include the effects of a changing health care system on biomedical research, international efforts on sustainable development, the use of educational technologies, and the role of the scientific community in preventing deadly conflict. Communicating science to the public was considered as another possible topic, but it was decided that the effort was too vast for limited PCAST resources. The committee agreed instead to support existing programs, such as those of AAAS, to enhance the understanding of science. Another PCAST task force examined state-federal technology partnerships. Gary Bachula of the Commerce Department reported that 49 states have technology partnership programs, and recognize their value to the economy, jobs, and productivity, without the ideological debates raging on Capitol Hill. He noted that while Congress has taken aim at NIST's Advanced Technology Program, a companion program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, fared better because it had "a built-in constituency in the states." The committee received an overview of the recent report on Human Radiation Experiments (see FYI #148), and the resulting establishment of a National Bioethics Advisory Commission. PCAST members were also apprised of a review of the major federal laboratory complexes, and the Administration's renewed commitment to the DOE weapons labs and science-based stewardship of the nuclear weapons stockpile (see FYI #133). Budget Director Alice Rivlin gave the committee a summary "from the budget wars." She stressed the Administration's theme that one of the differences between the congressional and executive budget-balancing plans is the amount of investment maintained in science, technology and education. Rivlin expressed hope that some money could be shifted from DOD funding (for which Congress provided $7 billion more than the Administration requested) to other priorities. Committee members inquired about the "reinventing government" initiative, and remarked that while some agencies were moving rapidly to streamline management (NASA was specifically commended), others continued to resist change or prolong studies of the issue. Rivlin pointed out that NASA Administrator Dan Goldin "had a lot of room to be a star" because he was working with a very redundant system. The next most likely place for management improvements, she said, was the national labs. She reported that plans were currently underway to consolidate, reduce redundancies, and privatize some labs "where appropriate." Committee members cited NSF as an example of minimal bureaucracy, where most of the funds flowed directly to individual investigators. Rivlin also reported that Congress would probably send its reconciliation bill to the President within two weeks, and that he would veto it if not dramatically changed. Lionel Johns of OSTP mentioned that the House-passed Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act, H.R. 2405 (see FYI #150), might be incorporated into the reconciliation package. It was noted that in the White House's response to the bill (see FYI #144), the portion relating to U.S. participation in Europe's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) had been interpreted by some within the physics community as Administration opposition to the project. Gerry Garvey of OSTP assured the committee that the Administration supported participation in the LHC, but opposed the bill language dictating negotiating terms. The discussion then turned to the health of the U.S. academic research enterprise, and the question of how PCAST might address this issue. Committee members Charles Vest (president of MIT) and Judith Rodin (president of the University of Pennsylvania) raised a number of topical factors affecting research universities, including new fields competing for research dollars; erosion of federal funding; the appropriate number of research institutions; the costs of R&D and measures of accountability; the numbers of graduates produced, foreign students supported, and underrepresented groups participating; the appropriateness of core curricula and graduate training for the job market; and renewal of infrastructure and major research facilities. The committee discussed how higher education will look in the future, when technologies will enable greater emphasis on long-distance education and lifelong learning. Rodin foresaw more long-distance, networked collaborations among universities as tight budgets forced cuts in departments and courses. "If our role is to advise the President on science and technology," Norman Augustine of Lockheed Martin asserted, "I can hardly think of a more important issue than the health of universities." The committee decided that, before their next meeting, a subgroup led by Rodin and Vest would review the 1992 PCAST report on research universities (see FYI #7, 1993), and plan to update it based on more recent studies and current budget realities. The next PCAST meeting is scheduled for the end of March, 1996. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Oct 30 10:08:24 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA26799; Mon, 30 Oct 95 10:08:22 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00144; 30 Oct 95 10:08 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11333; Mon, 30 Oct 95 07:05:58 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13892; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:05:19 -0700 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA00612; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 07:58:24 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 07:58:23 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Continuing Efforts in Congress Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Thought you might be interested in this inside-EPA memo from Browner! jim To All EPA Employees: You may have heard about the continuing efforts in Congress to remove the riders that would prevent us from doing our jobs from the House Appropriations bill. I thought it might be useful to describe those efforts briefly. As we have told you previously, now that the House and Senate have passed different versions of our appropriations bill, the next step is for them to go to conference and resolve the differences between the two versions. In order to do so, the House and Senate must appoint individual members of their respective Appropriations Committees as conferees to resolve those differences. The House was supposed to appoint its conferees this week. Congressman Stokes of Ohio planned to offer a motion to instruct the House conferees to strip the riders from the appropriations bill. A motion to instruct conferees is a non-binding but nonetheless important step that -- if adopted -- puts the House on record about a particular issue. The House would be instructing its negotiators to drop the riders when they met in conference with the Senate negotiators. The Republican congressional leadership in the House has postponed appointing House conferees, reportedly because those who favor eliminating the riders have enough support to pass the motion to instruct conferees. There are press reports that the Republican leadership may try to amend the Stokes motion so that some, but not all, of the riders would be retained. In any case, the vote will now not occur until next week, at the earliest. I am sure that you would also want to be aware that former EPA administrators have spoken out against the efforts in Congress to roll back environmental protection. William Reilly was interviewed a short time ago, and said "the current congressional effort has gone well beyond what the public will support." Even more recently, William Ruckelshaus spoke against "careless budget slashing" and "the most violent anti-environmental rhetoric in recent memory coming from the Congress." Such statements obviously help advance our work to educate the American people about the excesses in the congressional assault on our important public health and environmental protections. Carol M. Browner From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Oct 27 19:10:05 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21184; Fri, 27 Oct 95 19:10:03 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa09798; 27 Oct 95 19:10 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05198; Fri, 27 Oct 95 16:05:30 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA24091; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:04:50 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02977; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 16:57:55 -0600 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 16:57:53 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #152 - DOE Lab Reductions (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 152: October 27, 1995 House Defeats Plans to Cut National Laboratories During House floor debate on H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995, three amendments were offered to reduce the national laboratories. As explained in FYI #150, none of these amendments were adopted. The debate and roll call votes do, however, provide insight into current congressional thinking about the labs, as well as what direction Congress may take in the future. The first amendment offered by Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN) would have required "the aggregate number of individuals employed by all government-owned, contractor-operated departmental laboratories, other than departmental defense laboratories" to be reduced by "at least one-third" within five years of the enactment of the bill. In explaining his amendment, Roemer said it "will help balance the budget by requiring that the national laboratories participate in fair, even cuts, as many of the other items in this bill are experiencing.... This bill is about eliminating real corporate welfare." Citing the Galvin Report, Roemer added that his amendment "eliminates self-regulation by the DOE labs in meeting Federal, State and local environmental health and safety regulations." Speaking in support of the Roemer amendment was Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who is chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Department of Energy. Rising in opposition to the Roemer amendment was Rep. Bill Richardson (D-NM), who criticized the 33% cut as extreme. His amendment, offered as a substitute for Roemer's, would establish a DOE Laboratory Operations Board "to provide advice regarding the strategic direction for Department laboratories." The Richardson amendment would require a 15% cut over five years, which he said "is something that the scientific community and the Department of Energy can live with." Roemer's amendment, Richardson claimed, would result in between 14,000 and 20,000 people being cut from the labs, adding "you are literally going to be closing down some laboratories." House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) criticized the two amendments on a number of grounds, noting "we are cutting money out of programs that most people regard as a national asset for this country. We have had very little testimony to indicate that we do not have in the national laboratories assets of great importance to our future." The House then voted. It rejected Richardson's 15% reduction amendment by a vote of 147-yes to 247-no. It then turned to the Roemer amendment, requiring a 33% cut, and rejected it by a vote of 135-yes to 286-no. See FYI #153 for a list of those representatives favoring the 33% reduction. (Over) The last amendment was offered by Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI). It sought the privatization of DOE laboratories, calling for the sale of "all Department of Energy laboratories other than Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory." Lawrence Livermore would be offered for sale at a later date. In describing the rationale for his amendment, Klug said, "many of these labs no longer have a mission." He went on to describe how Britain has privatized some of its laboratories. After some debate, the House rejected by a voice vote the Klug amendment. This is not the end of the road for those seeking to privatize the laboratories. During debate on the Klug amendment, subcommittee chairman Dana Rohrabacher rose in "reluctant opposition" to the amendment because his subcommittee did not have a chance to hold hearings on it. Turning to Klug, Rohrabacher said, "I would hope that the gentlemen from Wisconsin, if this loses in a vote on the floor, would not give up but instead resubmit this and submit it to the committee and I would be very happy to bring this up at the earliest possible time." ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Oct 30 12:17:59 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27593; Mon, 30 Oct 95 12:17:57 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa04345; 30 Oct 95 12:17 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA12959; Mon, 30 Oct 95 09:13:56 PST Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:13:56 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: epi@lternet.edu Subject: 4th Congress European Society for Agronomy- FYI Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ------------------------------------------------------------------- E U R O P E A N S O C I E T Y F O R A G R O N O M Y (E S A) ------------------------------------------------------------------- ESA 4th Congress 7 - 11 July 1996 - Chairman: dr. Hubert Spiertz Veldhoven - Wageningen, The Netherlands ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wageningen, October 1995 The fourth CONGRESS of the EUROPEAN SOCIETY for AGRONOMY will be held from 7-11 July 1996 in the Congress centre Koningshof in Veldhoven, The Netherlands. Organization of the Congress: - DLO Research Institute for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility (AB-DLO) - C.T. de Wit Graduate School for Production Ecology (WAU-PE) - Research station for Arable Farming and Field Production of Vegetables (PAGV) The Congress will bring together about 400 scientists, primarily from European countries, and will provide a representative picture of the direction in which agricultural research and agronomy in an expanding Europe is moving or has to move. A General Plenary Session will address: LAND USE, NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN AN EXPANDING EUROPE. Thereafter three main themes will be introduced in a plenary session, and elaborated in parallel oral and poster sessions: 1. AGRO-ECOLOGICAL STUDIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE 1.1. Agro-ecological characterization and climate change 1.2. Agro-ecological characterization and water limitation 1.3. Agro-ecological characterization and adaptation of crops. 2. INTEGRATED AND ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE 2.1. Designing farming systems: methodological aspects 2.2. Resource use at cropping system level 2.3. Resource use at crop level 3. DYNAMICS OF NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC MATTER 3.1. Soil fertility, organic matter and C-dynamics 3.2. Phosphate uptake, accumulation and losses 3.1. Nitrogen transformation and utilization A productive mix with subjects channeled through the existing Scientific Divisions of ESA is planned. Optional trips to field experiments on sustainable agriculture, to the Dutch 'Westland' (the greenhouse horticulture production area) and to Dutch Agricultural Research Centres will be provided. A leisure programme is available for accompanying persons. Those wishing to present a poster or paper are invited to submit an informative abstract (200-250 words) to the Scientific Secretariat before 1 December 1995. The abstracts will be reviewed by the Scientific Committee. Instructions to authors will be sent for accepted contributions, 15 January 1996. In order to provide a book of abstracts at the start of the Congress, each author is required to submit a camera ready two-page abstract by 1 April 1996. Selected contributions will be published as full papers in a special Proceedings issue. The Congress centre 'Koningshof' in Veldhoven is having excellent facilities for formal and informal exchange of news and views. Its location in a forested area will create the right atmosphere for scientific and social interactions. A preliminary indication for the registration fee, including all meals and accommodation is DFL 1300 (about 600 ECU). (PhD-)Students and participants from Middle and Eastern Europe can apply for a reduced rate. If you are interested in the Congress or its theme, please return the reply form to the Organizing Secretariat and you will receive the S E C O N D C I R C U L A R with further information. --------------------------------------------------------------------- (Use the numbers below to complete the REPLY FORM/PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION) Themes/Sessions of ESA 4th Congress 1.1 Agro-ecological characterization and climate change 1.2 Agro-ecological characterization and water limitation 1.3 Agro-ecological characterization and adaptation of crops 2.1 Designing farming systems: methodological aspects 2.2 Resource use at cropping system level 2.3 Resource use at crop level 3.1 Soil fertility, organic matter and C-dynamics 3.2 Phosphate uptake accumulation and losses 3.3 Nitrogen transformation and utilisation ESA Scientific Divisions 1. Crop physiology, production and management 2. Agroclimatology and modelling 3. Plant-soil relationships 4. Crop quality and post-harvest physiology 5. Cropping and farming systems 6. Agriculture-environment relationships ============== REPLY FORM / PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION ============= E U R O P E A N S O C I E T Y F O R A G R O N O M Y (E S A) ------------------------------------------------------------------- ESA 4th Congress 7 - 11 July 1996 - Chairman: dr. Hubert Spiertz Veldhoven - Wageningen, The Netherlands ------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: ................................................. Organization: ......................................... Address: .............................................. Code/City: ............................................ Country: .............................................. Telephone: ............................................ Fax: .................................................. E-mail: ............................................... Y/N I intend to participate Y/N I wish to contribute Y/N oral paper to Theme nr. ... or Division nr. ... Y/N poster to Theme nr. ... or Division nr. ... Y/N Please send me further information Y/N I am member of ESA Y/N Please send details on ESA membership Date: ................................ ====================== End Reply Form =========================== PLEASE COMPLETE THE REPLY FORM AND RETURN IT BY E-MAIL or... PRINT THE REPLY FORM AND SEND IT TO THE ORGANIZING SECRETARIAT: Kongresservice Brabant P.O. Box 140, NL-5500 AC Veldhoven, The Netherlands Telephone: +31 40 254 71 71 Fax : +31 40 254 55 15 E-mail : congress@koningshof.nl ==================== Submission of Abstracts ======================== Submission of Abstracts (200-250 words) before 1 December 1995 to the SCIENTIFIC SECRETARIAT: Dr. Siebe van de Geijn AB-DLO, P.O. Box 14, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands Telephone: +31 317 47 57 31 Fax : +31 317 42 31 10 E-mail : esa96@ab.dlo.nl =================================================================== E U R O P E A N S O C I E T Y F O R A G R O N O M Y (E S A) ------------------------------------------------------------------- ESA 4th Congress 7 - 11 July 1996 - Chairman: dr. Hubert Spiertz Veldhoven - Wageningen, The Netherlands ------------------------------------------------------------------- O R G A N I Z A T I O N C O M I T T E E : BOARD Dr. Hubert Spiertz (AB-DLO) Prof.dr. Louise Fresco (WAU-Agronomy) Dr. Siebe van de Geijn (AB-DLO) Prof.dr. Rudy Rabbinge (WAU-TPE) Dr. Kees Rijniersce (PAGV) EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT Dr. Siebe van de Geijn (AB-DLO) Dr. Martin van Ittersum (WAU-TPE) Dr. Theo Jetten (WAU-PE) Dr. Kees Rijniersce (PAGV) Ruud Verkerke (AB-DLO) ============================================================ >>> PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO COLLEAGUES WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THE CONFERENCE ============================================================ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Oct 31 11:00:19 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03077; Tue, 31 Oct 95 11:00:16 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa14221; 31 Oct 95 11:00 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00444; Tue, 31 Oct 95 07:53:19 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28407; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:52:32 -0700 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA01002; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:45:35 -0700 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 08:45:34 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Academic Research Instrumentation (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR JUST A HEADS-UP FOR YOUR INFORMATION.... The ARI-Instrumentation Program will have about $50M to allocate this year for research instrumentation. The deadline for proposals will be February 1, 1996. Each institution will be allowed to submit 2 proposals for this competition, as in the past. Award sizes from NSF will range from $100K to $2M with excepted cases listed in the solicitation. Instrumentation acquisition and development are eligible activities. The integration of research and education are encouraged. Cost matching at the 30% level is required of all institutions. This information is provided to you so that you can alert your communities, especially with the earlier deadline. Nat Pitts OSTI From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Nov 4 11:07:56 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10206; Sat, 4 Nov 95 11:07:55 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10080; 4 Nov 95 11:07 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05670; Sat, 4 Nov 95 08:06:17 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA21660; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 09:05:40 -0700 Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 09:05:40 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #156 - International Science Projects (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 156: November 3, 1995 Suggestions from OTA on Internationalizing Big Science Projects As budgets get tighter and science experiments get bigger, international collaborations will likely become more common. How can policymakers decide which projects are good candidates for internationalization? In a 132-page report released in July, before it had to close its doors, the Office of Technology Assessment examined this question. According to the foreword, "This background paper...reviews U.S. experience with collaborative projects in many different fields and their implications for future activities. It assesses the factors that facilitate international partnerships in big science projects and those that, conversely, favor the pursuit of purely national projects. [It] also reviews and identifies several important issues to consider in structuring future collaborations." The paper points out that the end of the Cold War and advances in communications and information technologies have increased interaction across national borders. In addition, the scientific expertise of other nations has improved, providing the U.S. more opportunity to benefit from the sharing of knowledge. The global nature of research in areas such as climate change, also, has necessitated an international approach. Among the potential benefits of collaboration, OTA lists: increasing the likelihood of scientific success; sharing costs and risks; taking advantage of other countries' expertise and facilities; and addressing issues with global implications. It warns of possible disadvantages, too: the need for more complex management and logistical arrangements; the uncertainty of ensuring long-term commitments from all partners; the difficulty of distributing costs and benefits equitably; as well as possible conflicts with U.S. economic and national security interests, and the goal of world leadership in science. Noting that "some U.S. science goals are difficult to reconcile with international collaboration," the paper remarks that "future U.S. participation in large-scale collaborative projects may necessitate a redefinition of what constitutes scientific leadership." The paper offers a number of suggestions for evaluating future partnerships. If finds that projects must be considered for internationalization on a case-by-case basis, within, rather than across, disciplines. It recommends that for large projects Congress require an upfront analysis of the pros and cons of internationalization, as well as an accurate estimate of project cost and performance to "permit policymakers to weigh more accurately the technical and financial tradeoffs." It notes that while the U.S. has a reputation as an unreliable partner, other countries are beginning to feel more budgetary pressures as well, and suggests a more formal structure for partnerships. While the flow of technologies to other countries is a concern, the report states that "building up national scientific capabilities and joining international partnerships are not necessarily mutually exclusive." OTA concludes that the above-mentioned problems "are almost always outweighed by the benefits that can be derived by pooling intellectual talent from around the world and by the increased understanding that results from the close interaction of diverse groups of people." The report, "International Partnerships in Large Science Projects," OTA-BP-ETI-150, can be purchased from the Government Printing Office, phone: 202-512-1800; fax: 202-512-2250. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Nov 4 11:09:05 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10212; Sat, 4 Nov 95 11:09:04 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa10241; 4 Nov 95 11:09 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05665; Sat, 4 Nov 95 08:05:27 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA21636; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 09:03:24 -0700 Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 09:03:23 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu, biofac@algadones.unm.edu Subject: Research funding Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR 1. TRAIN WRECK: COULD WE HAVE A YEAR-LONG CONTINUING RESOLUTION? At least four spending bills, including Defense, are stalled in Congress by arguments over abortion provisions. And of the bills that are spared that ideological impasse, several, including VA- HUD-IA and Commerce, seem certain to draw a veto. Only two of 13 spending bills have been signed. With less than two weeks before the short term CR runs out, talk is growing of a year-long CR at spending levels reduced by even more than the current 5%. That might sound pretty good at the National Endowment for the Arts, but it would mean big trouble for science at NSF, NIH and DOE. 2. DOOMSDAY MACHINE: THE DEBT LIMIT IS USED TO RAISE THE STAKES. The House version of the Reconciliation Bill, passed last week (WN 27 Oct 95), would dismantle Commerce and collect the tattered remains of NOAA, NWS and NBS in a National Institute of Science and Technology. But Commerce dismantlement will be stripped from the bill in conference, because it violates a Senate rule barring discretionary spending matters from reconciliation bills. So the House freshmen are demanding a new vehicle. It could be in a new CR, but they threaten to raise the stakes by attaching it to the debt extension bill. The current ceiling expires on 13 November. 3. MASS SUICIDE: "ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR R&D." House Science Committee chair Bob Walker (R-PA) was quoted by US News this week as saying, "I have to be in favor of the cuts [in science] necessary to get us to our target." On Wednesday, the Congressional Research Service sponsored a day-long workshop for congressional staff to consider four "alternative models" for reducing federal support for R&D: 1) Support only defense related R&D; 2) In addition to defense, also support R&D in environmental clean-up, space and health; 3) Reduce federal support of all R&D by 30-50%; 4) Increase basic research support by 2% a year above inflation, while cutting applied research by up to 30%. That's how these things work: the first three are so insane that by the time you get to the final alternative it almost looks good. 4. FINDING: COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS REPORTS HIGH R&D YIELD. A CEA report released this week puts the social rate of return on federal investment in R&D at close to 50%. By 2002, congressional proposals would slash research funding by about 30%, while Japan expects to double R&D spending by 2000. In terms of percentage of GDP, Japan is already outspending the US on non-defense R&D. By 1997, Japan will be outspending the US in absolute dollars! 5. LESSON: SLUMP IN THE JAPANESE ECONOMY PROMPTS DECISIVE ACTION. The Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science supports some 250 one-year post-doctoral fellowships for foreigners. Responding to bad economic news, the Japanese government just provided JSPS with a budget supplement to hire another 200 short-term postdocs. THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.) From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Nov 6 15:12:44 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16658; Mon, 6 Nov 95 15:12:42 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05749; 6 Nov 95 15:12 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24781; Mon, 6 Nov 95 12:11:47 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08351; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:11:11 -0700 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03290; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:04:13 -0700 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:04:11 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: dman@lternet.edu Cc: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Harvest Search Program Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Its Harvest Time: Hunting and Gathering Information on the Internet By Beth Gaston Say you wanted to buy a set of tires and were looking for an advertisement. One way of finding that ad would be to create a physical robot that skittered around the city and pulled every ad -- from newspapers, supermarkets, the phone book, billboards, fliers on phone poles, even graffitti. Upon your request, the robot would sort through the myriad messages for the ones for tires. The process is clunky -- it takes the robot a great deal of time and effort to look for everything possible and carry it back; and it takes you a long time to sort through the garbage to find the treasured information. However, many search tools on the Internet work this way. They gather data from Internet sites to build a local database, and it is this database they search for queries. The process takes time and causes electronic traffic jams, and it takes the searcher a lot of time to sort through all the junk. Harvest, however, is different. Funded in part by the National Science Foundation, Harvest is an integrated set of tools to gather, extract, organize, search, cache and replicate relevant information across the Internet. It allows customization of the search effort and tailoring to the user's specific needs, while at the same time making efficient use of network traffic. "Harvest is a more expansive vision than simply searching Web pages, " says Michael Schwartz, a computer scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder and team leader for the project. The team itself is distributed across the U.S., including Schwartz; Peter Danzig from the University of Southern California; Udi Manber, University of Arizona; Mic Bowman, Transarc Corp, a Pittsburgh software company; and Darren Hardy and Duane Wessels from the University of Colorado at Boulder. When the Internet was small, search robots like the ones described above were OK -- there wasn't too much information to sort through, he says. They still serve a useful function, but they can't keep up with the exponential growth of the Internet and the information available there, and are inefficient. "The world has become too complicated for that type of search. There are now lots of interconnected communities with different types of information and different needs." Harvest is a more distributed system where search tasks are broken into customized pieces. This allows customization of choices about what types of data are gathered and whether the information is picked up at many local sites and coordinated, or whether the search is conducted from the user's machine. The user can also specify how the information is extracted, maintained, indexed and stored. A key to the efficiency of the system is its distribution. Rather than one machine hunting everywhere, a mesh of links allows many machines to hunt and gather information, with the data culled and indexed before being passed to the user. That way, the amount of unwanted junk transferred across the network is minimized. And, within any community, the data can be configured in the way most useful to users of that type. Harvest also allows for searches of machine-usable data rather than just that configured for diplays for people to look at, says Schwartz. Because of the collaboration among the components of the system, Harvest can reduce the load on a computer server by a factor of four while extracting and indexing information, and by a factor of 6,600 while delivering this information to remote indexers. Network traffic is reduced by a factor of 59, and index space requirements are reduced by a factor of 43. Harvest is the first phase of a $2 million, multi-year project funded by the National Science Foundation, Advanced Research Projects Agency, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Hughes Aircraft Company and Sun Microsystems of Mountain View, California. The software, description and directions can be located on the World Wide Web at: http://harvest.cs.colorado.edu. From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Nov 6 18:21:05 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17637; Mon, 6 Nov 95 18:21:03 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa28256; 6 Nov 95 18:21 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27440; Mon, 6 Nov 95 15:11:09 PST Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 15:11:08 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu Subject: BIO Research Traineeships Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR This announcement, with links to additional information, is available online at http://algodones.unm.edu/~bmilne/rtg.html . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The University of New Mexico and the Santa Fe Institute Announce the Formation of a Bio Research Training Group in ECOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY The University of New Mexico has received a grant from the National Science Foundation to support a BIO Research Training Group (RTG) in the area of ecological complexity. The RTG program will be conducted jointly by the Department of Biology and the Department of Computer Science at UNM and by the Santa Fe Institute. The RTG is expected to support five graduate trainees each year, beginning in 1996 and continuing for five years. Trainees will be selected from among current and new incoming graduate students. They will be expected to enroll full-time in the Ph.D. program in Biology, Computer Science, or other appropriate department at UNM. The RTG will support each trainee with a stipend of $14,000 per year and payment of tuition and fees. Support will also enable trainees to take courses and internships with the complex systems group at the Santa Fe Institute. Each trainee will be expected to pursue an individualized doctoral program of study and research in some area that falls under the general heading of "ecological complexity". Examples of topics that might be suitable include, but are not limited to, the following: * Structure and dynamics of ecological systems at any level of organization: individuals, populations, communities, ecosystems, landscapes, and the globe * Influences of phylogenetic, environmental, or ontogenetic history on the characteristics of individuals, populations, or species * Mathematical and computer models of ecological, evolutionary, and developmental processes * Artificial, computer-based organisms and their ecology and evolution * Development and evaluation of conceptual, analytical, and statistical tools for studying biological complexity We welcome inquiries from prospective students with diverse backgrounds and interests. Prospective applicants should write for graduate program information and application forms from the department (Biology, Computer Science, or other) at UNM that best matches their interests and career goals. Additional information about the RTG program and traineeships can be obtained from: Dr. James H. Brown, Coordinator RTG Program in Ecological Complexity Department of Biology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 Co-principal investigators: Stephanie Forrest, Department of Computer Science, UNM Bruce T. Milne, Department of Biology Mike Simmons,Vice President for Academic Affairs, Santa Fe Institute George Stevens, UNM Biology >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Stephanie Martin University of Washington 206/ 543-6764 Publications/Public Information College of Forest Resources Fax: 543-7295 LTER Network Office Box 352100 Seattle, WA 98195-2100 e-mail: sMartin@LTERnet.edu URL: http://lternet.edu >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Nov 9 09:55:05 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28262; Thu, 9 Nov 95 09:55:03 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25693; 9 Nov 95 9:55 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15212; Thu, 9 Nov 95 06:52:14 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA27019; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 07:51:39 -0700 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA04429; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 07:44:38 -0700 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 07:44:36 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Re: GIS conference Santa Fe (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA January 21-25, 1996 The Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling will be held under the auspices of the U.S. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis in Santa Fe, NM from Sunday January 21 to Thursday January 25, 1996. The conference follows previous meetings in Boulder, Colorado in 1991 and Breckenridge, Colorado in 1993, each attended by over 600 participants. The conference has three interrelated objectives: 1. To review the current status of digital geographic information for environmental modeling, with particular emphasis on the technical and institutional issues affecting its usefulness and accessibility. 2. To review progress, with emphasis on the period since the previous conference, in the development of environmental models, and in the exploitation of geographic information technologies, particularly GIS, to support modeling. 3. To identify areas where progress in the integration of GIS and environmental modeling is likely to be made in the next few years, through improvements in technology, institutional structures, and modeling methods. The program is organized around three themes, each addressing one of the three objectives: Data Issues: topics include but are not limited to data quality, reports on new data sources, spatial data infrastructures, new technologies for data access including digital spatial data libraries, intellectual property issues, economics of spatial data provision, metadata and format standards, methods of discretization, data modeling and data structures, methods of spatial analysis including interpolation and regionalization, integration of GIS and remote sensing. Progress in Modeling: reports and demonstrations of progress in integrating GIS and environmental modeling in such fields as atmospheric science, ecology, oceanography, hydrology, spatial decision support, biodiversity, water and air quality, risk assessment, global environmental change, coupled systems or integrated modeling, and appropriate contributions to the global modeling of carbon, trace gas fluxes, etc. New Research Frontiers: discussions or demonstrations of research offering potential for new approaches to environmental modeling with GIS, including such topics as cellular automata models, modeling languages, computational modeling systems, new approaches to data modeling including time, 3D, 4D, and global modeling, object oriented systems, and agent- or event-based programming. In addition to sessions on each of these themes, the conference will follow the pattern of previous conferences by including workshops and tutorials on significant topics, informal discussion sessions, poster sessions and demonstrations. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE: Michael Goodchild, NCGIA Louis Steyaert, NASA Bradley Parks, University of Colorado Michael Crane, USGS Carol Johnston, University of Minnesota John Wilson, Montana State University Denice Shaw, US EPA Sandi Glendinning, NCGIA PRELIMINARY PROGRAM: (For a complete listing of papers and authors who will be presenting, please refer to the following URL: http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/conf/santa_fe.html) Please note that workshops will be held all day Sunday and one workshop on Thursday morning, with a Thursday morning wrap-up session to summarize conference events and goals for the future. (Please refer to the URL address above for complete information on workshops.) MONDAY - January 22, 1996 AM Concurrent Sessions CLIMATE/WEATHER INTERPOLATION - SESSION 1 INTERNET/DATA ACCESS 1 - SESSION 2 LAND SURFACE CHARACTERIZATION: VEGETATION 1 - SESSION 3 INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT - SESSION 4 Lunch PM Concurrent sessions INTERNET/DATA ACCESS 2 - SESSION 5 LAND SURFACE CHARACTERIZATION: SOILS - SESSION 6 LAND SURFACE CHARACTERIZATION: DEMs - SESSION 7 DATA INTEGRATION/DATA MODELS - SESSION 8 Break LAND SURFACE CHARACTERIZATION: HYDROLOGY - SESSION 9 DISCRETIZATION OF SPACE - SESSION 10 LARGE DATABASE ISSUES - SESSION 11 LAND SURFACE CHARACTERIZATION: VEGETATION 2 - SESSION 12 TUESDAY - January 23, 1996 AM Concurrent Sessions SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY AND EROSION - SESSION 1 GIS AND HYDROLOGIC MODELING OF SNOW COVER - SESSION 2 BIODIVERSITY - SESSION 3 LANDSCAPE PATTERN AND CHANGE - SESSION 4 Lunch PM Concurrent Sessions GROUNDWATER - SESSION 5 SWAT MODELING - SESSION 6 ECOSYSTEM MODELING - SESSION 7 PLANT AND ANIMAL DISPERSAL - SESSION 8 Break CLIMATIC AND ATMOSPHERIC MODELING - SESSION 9 STORMWATER AND WATERBODIES - SESSION 10 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT - SESSION 11 CONTAMINATION AND HEALTH - SESSION 12 AGRICULTURE - SESSION 13 WEDNESDAY - January 24, 1996 AM Concurrent Sessions INTEROPERABILITY - SESSION 1 MODELING ENVIRONMENTS AND LANGUAGES - SESSION 2 TEMPORAL MODELING - SESSION 3 VISUALIZATION: INTEGRATION - SESSION 4 Lunch PM Concurrent Sessions SPATIAL REASONING AND LEARNING - SESSION 5 COLLABORATION - SESSION 6 VISUALIZATION: COGNITION AND LANDSCAPE VIEWING - SESSION 7 LAND USE MODELING - SESSION 8 Break MULTIPLE CRITERIA/SOLUTIONS AND OPTIMIZATION - SESSION 9 CELLULAR MODELING - SESSION 10 3-DIMENSIONALITY - SESSION 11 DEVELOPING SELF-ADAPTIVE ECOSYSTEM MODELS - SESSION 12 For further information, including Exhibitor information, please contact: Sandi Glendinning National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Phelps Hall 3510 University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060, USA Phone: +1 805 893 8224 FAX: +1 805 893 8617 Email: sandi@ncgia.ucsb.edu Papers will be available at the conference, and will also be published after the conference in the form of an edited CD rom. Demos and Posters will also be included on the CD rom. The edited volume from the first (1991) conference is available from Oxford University Press (Goodchild, Parks, and Steyaert, Environmental Modeling with GIS, 1993); the volume from the second conference (1993) will be available later this year from GIS World Books, (Goodchild, Steyaert, Parks, Crane, Johnston, Maidment and Glendinning, GIS and Environmental Modeling: Progress and Research Issues, 1995) HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS The following list of hotels have blocked rooms for the Santa Fe conference. When making reservations, please identify the "NCGIA Conference Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling". Please note the cut-off dates for each hotel to take advantage of the special rates as listed. La Fonda - (Plenary sessions will be held each morning in the La Fonda ballroom, followed by all concurrent sessions in the Sweeney Convention Center) Single: $105 per room, per night, plus tax Double: $115 per room, per night, plus tax Cut-off date January 4, 1996 Phone: (505) 982-5511 FAX: (505) 988-2952 Eldorado Hotel Dbl/Dbl: $80 one/two persons per night, plus tax King $80 one person, $95 two persons, plus tax Cut-off date December 9, 1995 Phone: (800) 955-4455 FAX: (505) 988-5376 Hotel Santa Fe Superior Rm: $79 per person, per night; $79 double, plus tax Jr. Suite: $79 per person, per night; $79 double, plus tax Delux Suite: $109 per person, per night; $109 double, plus tax Cut-off date January 4, 1996 Phone: (800) 825-9876 FAX: (505) 984-2211 Hilton of Santa Fe Single/Dbl $95 per night, plus tax Cut-off date December 19, 1995 Phone: (505) 988-2811 FAX: (505) 986-6439 Hotel St. Francis Single/Dbl $90 per night, plus tax Cut-off date November 19, 1995 Phone: (800) 529-5700 FAX: (505) 989-7690 La Posada of Santa Fe Single/Dbl Current Federal Government Per Diem for 1996 Cut-off date December 19, 1995 Phone: (800) 727-5276 FAX: (505) 982-6850 Homewood Suites King Suites $89 per night, plus tax Cut-off date December 20, 1995 Phone: (505) 988-3000 FAX: (:505) 988-4700 Santa Fe Accommodations, Fort Marcy Single: $80 per person, per night, plus tax Double: $65 per person, per night, plus tax Cut-off date December 20, 1996 Phone: (800) 745-9910 FAX: (505) 984-8682 Inn of the Governors Single/Dbl: $95 per night, plus tax Cut-off date December 20, 1995 Phone: (800) 234-4534 FAX: (505) 989-9149 TRANSPORTATION By Air: United Airlines is offering special meeting fares for all attendees of NCGIA's Third International Conference Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling who use the Special Meeting Desk to book their reservations. Book early and take advantage of the promotional fares that give you the greatest savings! Earn a 5% discount off the lowest applicable fare, including First Class, or 10% off the mid-week coach fare. Simply call (or have your travel agent call) 1-800-521-4041 and refer to Meeting ID Number 564XY. Reservationists are on duty seven days a week from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM Eastern Standard Time. Mileage Plus members receive full credit for all miles flow to this meeting. Tickets can be mailed by United, picked up at your local travel agency or United Airlines ticket office. Car Rental Discounts - Avis and Alamo rental car companies will offer, to the attendees of the conference, discounts of 10% off the applicable rental rates when reservations are made in conjunction with United Airlines air reservations. Via Albuquerque: The Albuquerque International Airport, about 60 miles outh of Santa Fe, is the closest connecting stop for major airlines. >From the airport, direct shuttle service to downtown Santa Fe hotels is offered by Shuttlejack. Reservations are encouraged. Rates are $20 per person, one way and shuttle services run approximately every hour. No credit cards are accepted. Phone: (505) 982-4311. FAX: (505) 893-5918 Most major car-rental agencies operate out of Albuquerque International Airport and gladly accommodate Santa Fe-bound travelers. If you are driving from the airport, allow about an hour and a half to reach your Santa Fe destination. By Car: US 84-285 or Interstate 25. Via Santa Fe: The Santa Fe Municipal Airport, (505) 473-7243, is a low-traffic-density airport with facilities for private planes. Car rental is available there. Mesa Airlines, (800) 637-2247, operates a schedule of daily flights between Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Transportation to local hotels can be arranged through Santa Fe Hotel Limo Services, (800) 927-3536 WEATHER AND ALTITUDE: The monthly temperature range for January in Santa Fe is an average high of 40 and an average low of 19 degrees. Santa Fe has an average relative humidity of 50 percent. Snow falls primarily from December through March. Santa Fe's altitude is 7,000 feet. There are a few things to remember when you first experience this altitude. Give yourself 24 hours to adjust and take it easy. Resting after arrival and walking slowly will help to adjust. REGISTRATION FORM: Maximum registration will be 700 participants NO ONSITE REGISTRATION Full Registration: (Before December 1, 1995) $210.00 (After December 1, 1995) $265.00 Student Registration $ 80.00 Name: _________________________________________________________________ Title: __________________________________________________________________ Affiliation: ______________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Phone: _____________________________ FAX: _____________________________ Email: _________________________________________________________________ Submit payment by check, money order or purchase order. NO CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED. Make checks Payable (in US dollars) drawn on US Bank to: U.C. Regents/NCGIA and send to: NCGIA Conference Secretariat c/o Geography Research 3611 Ellison Hall University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Nov 9 22:22:21 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01833; Thu, 9 Nov 95 22:22:20 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26659; 9 Nov 95 22:22 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26771; Thu, 9 Nov 95 19:18:17 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05985; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 20:16:13 -0700 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 20:16:13 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: FYI #159 - Commerce Dismantlement (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Brinkmanship: Congress and the Administration on the Dept. of Commerce A year-long campaign by House Republican freshmen to abolish the Department of Commerce is coming to a head this week as Congress struggles over must-pass legislation. Failure to pass two key bills could result in a default by the federal government, and a shutdown of the government next Tuesday. This afternoon, the House agreed by a vote of 220-200 to a procedure which attached a Commerce Department dismantlement provision to a short term debt limit extension bill. This legislation would increase the federal government's borrowing authority by $67 billion. Congress has traditionally been reluctant to agree to an increase in this limit, and this year it has been particularly difficult because so many of the 73 freshman Republican representatives want to reduce government spending. To help ensure passage, and to keep a promise to the freshman that Commerce legislation would be considered, the House leadership agreed to using the debt limit bill as a dismantlement vehicle. What is likely to pass in the House is sure to run into immediate opposition in the Senate, as well as at the White House. Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS), while favoring Commerce's elimination, said today that he opposes doing so through the debt ceiling bill. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM), speaking of the dismantlement provision, has warned, "There aren't enough votes for that over here -- by a lot." It is expected that the Senate will not include a similar provision in its own debt limit bill, setting the stage for a major disagreement in the conference committee seeking to resolve differences in the two versions of the legislation. Even if the dismantlement provision does survive in the debt limit bill sent to the President, the Administration has left no doubt that it will be vetoed. White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta has told House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) that the debt limit bill would have to be "clean" of any provisions such as that abolishing Commerce. Today the Washington Post quoted one senior administration official as saying, "Our position is that it does not matter what they put on this legislation, we are not going to accept anything but clean bills because we will not be blackmailed over default." The stakes are high, because without an increase in the debt limit the federal government could go into default by the middle of next week. Congress is also racing to complete action on another bill to provide additional money to keep the government from closing down on Monday night. As of this week, only two (agriculture and military construction) of the thirteen appropriations bills for FY 1996 have been signed into law. Under legislation the House passed last night, no more than 60% of last year's spending would be allowed by a department through December 1. Without this stop-gap funding, at least 800,000 federal workers will be furloughed. Today a White House spokesman said there are "no chances" a shutdown could be avoided. When asked about the shutdown, House Science Committee Chairman and Budget Committee Vice Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) stated, "I don't know that we're going to regard that as a major emergency." ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Nov 10 22:54:35 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10506; Fri, 10 Nov 95 22:54:34 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06737; 10 Nov 95 22:54 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13259; Fri, 10 Nov 95 19:47:09 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA17900; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 20:46:35 -0700 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 20:46:35 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, biofac@algadones.unm.edu Subject: FYI #160 - Democrats' News Conference (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Democrats Argue for Protecting Federal Investment in Science & Technology Republicans in the House and Senate are currently struggling to come to agreement on the provisions of their budget-cutting reconciliation bill, so they can send it to President Clinton before Thanksgiving. At the same time, the White House and congressional Democrats are speaking out frequently and forcefully on areas of federal funding they believe should be preserved. One of these areas is science and technology. Six Democratic senators held a news conference on November 8 to raise concerns about future reductions to science and technology spending under the Republican plan. Attending the conference were Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), John Glenn (D-OH), Ernest Hollings (D-SC), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), as well as the President's Assistant for Economic Policy, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, and Assistant for Science Policy, John Gibbons. Bingaman defended public-private technology partnerships as "a way for the government to economize" by encouraging private sector collaboration and cost-sharing on R&D important to the nation. "Some of my Republican colleagues think they can cut [R&D]...because the private sector will pick up the slack," Lieberman said. But he cited historical evidence that when the government cuts back on R&D funding, the private sector follows suit. Tyson and Gibbons reiterated the Administration's theme that balancing the budget is counterproductive if it eliminates the investments needed for future economic growth and job creation. They cited an estimate, calculated by AAAS, that federal civilian R&D funding would be cut by 30 percent between now and 2002 if the Republican balanced-budget plan is fully enacted. (Clinton's revised plan to bring the budget into balance by 2004 does not go into sufficient detail to directly compare, but it would cut non-defense discretionary spending - within which civilian R&D is supported - less deeply than Congress's plan.) The news conference provided an opportunity to highlight two recent Administration reports on the importance of technology to the nation. One, by the Council of Economic Advisors, is summarized in FYI #157; the other is a 23-page White House paper entitled "Technology and Economic Growth: Producing Real Results for the American People." The White House document repeats many of the conclusions of the Council of Economic Advisors: since World War II, technological innovation has been responsible for up to one-half of the nation's economic growth, but many of the investments that were of the greatest benefit to society were too expensive, or their returns too broadly spread, for private industry to support alone. The paper lists some of the results of technology investment by the government, often in partnership with the private sector: lasers, computers, biomedical technologies, teflon and other advanced materials, communications satellites, microwave ovens, solar cells, modems, semiconductors, and insulin, as well as advances in medicine, agriculture, transportation and manufacturing. "The government has supported - and must continue to support - exploratory research, experimentation and innovation that would be impossible for individual companies or even whole industries to afford," it says. For a copy of the White House paper, fax your request to 202-456-6019 or send an email to rborchelt@ostp.eop.gov. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Nov 16 18:47:53 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02177; Thu, 16 Nov 95 18:47:51 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa14301; 16 Nov 95 18:47 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA29648; Thu, 16 Nov 95 15:44:23 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19335; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 16:41:17 -0700 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 16:41:16 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: FYI #162 - Shutdown Status (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 162: November 16, 1995 Where Things Stand -- Impact of Federal Government Shutdown Varies The closure of significant portions of the federal government this week has had a varying impact on departments and agencies tracked by FYI. Here is a brief summary of where things now stand on this, the third day of shutdown: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: One day before the shutdown started, President Clinton signed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY 1996. DOE, along with the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation, are the only three federal departments functioning normally this week. In signing DOE's appropriation, Clinton stated, "The bill supports the Administration's proposal to reinvent the Department of Energy to improve the way it serves the American people.... [T]he bill provides full funding for one of my key science initiatives to enhance the operation and availability of the Department of Energy's science facilities, giving more researchers access to these facilities to conduct more basic and applied research. This is a modest investment that will leverage a significant return from the scientific community." It should be noted that the bill contains funding for two major DOE national laboratories located in New Mexico, a state represented by Senator Pete Domenici (R), a key player in budget negotiations. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION and NASA: Funding for these two agencies is provided in the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill. This bill is one of many Congress has yet to complete. Next week, Congress may pass a separate appropriation for some VA programs, which would reduce pressure on the need to pass the entire bill. Approximately 94% of NASA's 21,000 civil servants have been affected by the furlough. NSF is now being staffed by 22 employees. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE: Republican efforts to include Commerce dismantlement legislation in the debt ceiling bill collapsed late last week when Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) requested that the Senate delete this provision from the debt bill. Abraham, a major force for dismantlement in the Senate, declared, "the simple fact is that this is not the right time and this is not the right vehicle." The Senate agreed by voice vote to delete this provision. In all likelihood, this is not the end of this effort, Abraham telling fellow senators, "It is my hope that at another time - hopefully very soon - we will have the opportunity to look" at similar legislation. Added the chairman of the House Republican Conference, John A. Boehner (R-OH), "In the end, the [elimination] of the Commerce Department is going to happen. It may not be on this bill, but it is going to happen." Meanwhile, Commerce furloughed over 25,000 employees this week, since Congress has not sent an FY 1996 Commerce appropriations bill to the White House. The outlook for a resolution of this dispute is very clouded. Last week, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) warned, "If we have to shut down government for a month, we will." All of this serves as a prelude to a much larger conflict which will soon be coming to a head: a massive budget reconciliation bill the President has already indicated that he will veto. Members of Congress are now being told that they may be celebrating Thanksgiving in Washington this year. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Nov 18 10:16:05 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08021; Sat, 18 Nov 95 10:16:03 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa13975; 18 Nov 95 10:16 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01769; Sat, 18 Nov 95 07:13:50 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA14907; Sat, 18 Nov 1995 08:13:20 -0700 Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 08:13:20 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #163 - NSF Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 163: November 17, 1995 Congress Readies NSF Appropriations Bill for Final Action; Veto Looms While Congress and the Administration battle over short term legislation to fund curtailed federal activities, Congress is starting to break its own log jam. Over the last few days Congress has resolved differences in several appropriations bills that should have been sent to President Clinton by September 30. Among those now ready for final action is H.R. 2099, the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 1996. Last night, House and Senate conferees cleared this bill for a final up-or-down vote on the House and Senate floors. While H.R. 2099 should be sent to the President in the very near future, there is a real possibility that it will be vetoed because of cuts in HUD, EPA, and National Service programs. The VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Committees had approximately 10% less in money for FY 1996 than last year. This $80.3 billion bill funds both NASA and NSF. The following is known about the NSF component of the bill: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, TOTAL BUDGET: Under this bill, NSF would receive $3,180 million for FY 1996. This is $180 million, or 5.4%, less than the NSF request of $3,360 million. The new FY 1996 NSF budget would be $49 million, or 1.5%, less than the FY 1995 budget of $3,229 million. RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES: Under this bill, the Research and Related Activities budget would be $2,274 million. This is down $180 million, or 7.3%, from the request of $2,454 million. The new budget would be $29 million, or 1.3%, above the FY 1995 budget of $2,245 million. EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES: The Education budget would be $599 million, the full amount requested. This is $7 million, or 1.1% less than the FY 1995 budget of $606 million. MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT: This budget is for the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO). $70 million was requested by NSF for LIGO, which would be provided. ACADEMIC INFRASTRUCTURE: Congress provided the full request of $100 million. In FY 1995, $118 million was budgeted. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Nov 20 10:20:03 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12220; Mon, 20 Nov 95 10:19:55 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab16627; 20 Nov 95 10:19 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02279; Mon, 20 Nov 95 07:18:32 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA27115; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:13:34 -0700 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:13:34 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: NSF Funding update (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR On November 16, 1995, House and Senate conferees met to resolve their differences on the VA HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1996. This bill contains funding for NSF, HUD, VA, EPA, NASA, and a variety of other independent federal agencies. The conferees continued to work with a very constrained allocation that forced it to make overall reductions in discretionary spending that amounted to about 10% below the FY 1995 level for the subcommittee. While the controversial environmental "riders" or legislative restrictions proposed by the House were eliminated, major budget reductions in housing, environmental, and national service programs were agreed to by the conferees. This is expected to provoke a veto from the White House on this appropriation bill. Nevertheless, within the constraints brought on by the subcommittee's allocation, the conferees have agreed to provide NSF with a total budget of $3.180. For NSF's research and related activities, the conferees agreed to split the difference between the House and Senate marks settling on a level of $2.274 billion, which represents an increase of $29 million above the FY 1995 level. For all other NSF accounts (Education and Human Resources, Academic Research Infrastructure, Major Research Equipment, Salaries and Expenses, Relocation, and the Office of Inspector General), the conferees agreed to provide the amounts requested in the NSF budget just as the House and Senate had done previously in their own versions of the bill. The accompanying conference report is expected to provide additional details and will be circulated as soon as it is available. House and Senate floor action is expected prior to the Thanksgiving recess. However, with a veto of this bill a real possibility, uncertainty remains about when this bill might become law. The following table provides information on the conference committee's recommendations compared to House and Senate action, the NSF budget request, and the FY 1995 level. ************************************************* _NSF Program_ FY95 FY96 FY96 FY96 FY96 PLAN REQ HSE SEN CONF ************************************************* Research 2245 2454 2254 2294 2274 Education 606 599 599 599 599 Academic Infrastructure 118 100 100 100 100 Major Res Equipment 126 70 70 70 70 Salaries & Expenses 124 127 127 127 127 Relocation 5 5 5 5 5 Inspector General 4 5 5 5 5 ************************************************* NSF Total 3229 3360 3160 3200 3180 From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Nov 22 09:46:15 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21238; Wed, 22 Nov 95 09:46:13 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20098; 22 Nov 95 9:46 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19698; Wed, 22 Nov 95 06:43:25 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19860; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 07:42:57 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 07:42:57 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, biofac@algodones.unm.edu Subject: FYI #164 - NASA/NSF Funding Veto (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 164: November 21, 1995 Not Out of the Woods: NSF and NASA Funding Bill Will be Vetoed In a two-page Statement of Administration Policy sent to Congress yesterday, the Office of Management and Budget warned Congress that the VA/HUD appropriations bill funding NASA and the National Science Foundation is in trouble. "The President will veto this bill, if presented to him in its current form," the statement declares. Before leaving on its one-week Thanksgiving recess, Congress passed and the President then signed an interim bill providing money to keep various government programs running through December 15, including NASA and NSF. Both agencies have 25 days of breathing room while Congress and the Administration attempt to settle differences in the VA/HUD bill. The Statement of Administration Policy outlines significant objections to the VA/HUD bill (H.R. 2099) now working its way through Congress. None involve NSF or NASA. Among these objections: "The bill provides insufficient funds to support the important activities covered by this bill. It would threaten public health and the environment, end programs that are helping communities help themselves, close the door on college for thousands of young people, and leave veterans seeking medical care with fewer treatment options." The President's threatened veto is based on both policy and budget differences. The Statement outlines objections to the zeroing out of the national service program, declaring, "The President will not sign any version of this appropriations bill that does not restore funds for this vital program." Also cited are environmental enforcement restrictions. Receiving the most attention in the Statement are budget cuts in the bill. EPA funding is cut 22% below the request. Funding was zeroed out for the Community Development Financial Institutions program and some housing programs. Very significantly, the Administration states that $397 million was cut from the veterans' medical care request, making it less likely that any shifting of money from within the bill will come from the VA budget. One report indicates that around $2 billion will have to be added to the over-all bill to cover the deficiencies the Administration has identified in this $80.6 billion bill. No one can predict with any certainty how this will turn out. If the Administration insists on additional money for the deficient programs it can come from either outside or inside the bill. The defense appropriations bill may be vetoed because it contains $7 billion more than requested. If Congress trims DOD funding, it could free up money to be used in the VA/HUD and other appropriations bills not yet signed, among them the Commerce-State-Justice bill and the Labor-HHS bill, where other deep cuts have been made. If Congress refuses to make the defense cuts, if may have to redistribute funding in the current version of the VA/HUD bill. With VA, HUD, and EPA budgets identified by the Administration as already being too low, the only remaining sources of significant funding are the NASA and the NSF budgets. Come December 15, money may again run out for NASA and the NSF if this appropriations bill remains unsigned, and if Congress and the Administration deadlock over a short term funding bill as they did last week. Perhaps the strongest reason for optimism over an eventual settlement is the fact that December 15 is only ten days short of Christmas -- with Washington, D.C. being a long distance from many congressional districts. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Nov 22 09:59:58 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21285; Wed, 22 Nov 95 09:59:57 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24645; 22 Nov 95 9:59 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19910; Wed, 22 Nov 95 06:53:16 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA20020; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 07:52:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 07:52:47 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #165 - Global Warming Hearing (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 165: November 21, 1995 Rohrabacher Challenges Implications of Global Warming In his second hearing on "Scientific Integrity and Public Trust," (see FYI #132 for a summary of the first hearing), House Science Energy and Environment Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) questioned the accuracy of computer models of global warming and projections of potential impacts. Remarking on continuous revisions to estimates of warming, he asked, "are we so certain...that we should take actions that would change the lives of millions of our citizens at a cost of untold millions of dollars?" Declaring that "this subcommittee has a duty to continue to present balanced panels," Rohrabacher had invited witnesses with differing opinions. He also invited Vice President Gore to testify, particularly to charges that the Administration stifled opposing views on the issue, but Gore declined. Rohrabacher and Rep. Lynn Rivers (D-MI) clashed over this issue, as Rivers pointed out that a witness who had made such an assertion in the previous hearing was unwilling to follow up on her claim. All seven witnesses on the two panels, regardless of their views on global warming, agreed that continued research was vital. No one argued that climate change would not occur; instead, they disagreed over the estimated amounts and effects, and the policy implications. Peter Guerrero of the General Accounting Office explained that lack of knowledge about environmental processes like cloud formation, and insufficient computing power, limited the accuracy of computer models. But he supported the scientific consensus that continued unrestricted growth of greenhouse gas emissions would lead to global warming. The limitations of the computer models, he said, "do not change the likelihood that the climate will change." Jerry Mahlman of NOAA agreed that "none of the uncertainties...can make current concerns...go away. The problem is very real, and will be with us for a very long time." However, Mahlman said that society's responses to the threat were "value judgments" that were beyond the realm of science. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia cast doubt on the models by pointing out that estimates of potential warming had decreased over the years, but he called this "a classic example of the normal tension" between theory and data. Michaels felt the models did not yet account for all factors, and concluded that "reports of grave ecological consequences" could not be trusted. When asked by Rohrabacher whether they supported continued study, all the witnesses agreed. Michaels stressed the importance of continuing to monitor the climate, and said he believed the computer models and reality "were converging." Mahlman concurred, saying, "the simple truth is that no matter what opinions are, the check for the theories is in the data." He reported that the ability to collect data had decreased in the most recent federal budget. While the cost of taking preventive actions might be very, very high, he said, the cost of doing nothing might be prodigious. He warned lawmakers, "there's no soft landing spot." Rohrabacher expressed skepticism of the projected impacts, saying that "mankind has a way of developing new technologies that I believe...may well solve the problem without huge government intervention." Robert Watson, OSTP Associate Director of Environment, summarized some major conclusions of the upcoming report by the International Panel on Climate Change: the Earth's surface temperature has increased approximately one-half degree centigrade over the past century, and greenhouse gas concentrations, which tend to warm the atmosphere, have increased due to human activities. Concentrations of sulfate aerosols, which tend to cool the atmosphere, have also increased, possibly offsetting some greenhouse effects. The computer models simulate these effects quite well, Watson reported. He noted that both the magnitude and rate of human-induced warming would put new, additional stresses on ecological and socio-economic systems, and argued that the problem could be addressed in a cost-effective way. William Nierenberg of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography stated "there is no question in my mind that the current anthropogenic growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is bound to influence climate. The question is not whether but when, how much, and the nature and magnitude." Nierenberg explained that as more recent calculations implied a shorter lifetime for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (thus leading to a quicker response to any remediation), he had changed his opinion to believe that "one can now safely wait...before taking action." Thomas Moore, an economist at Stanford's Hoover Institution, drew a correlation between past periods of warming and instances of increased population growth and human development. He concluded that global warming would be generally beneficial to the human race. Rivers inquired, "if the equation is simply that warmer equals better," why are most equatorial nations third-world countries? Moore replied that due to technological innovation, climate has less influence on human development today than in the past. Rivers asked whether he could be certain that temperature increases due to carbon dioxide emissions would produce the same results as past periods of warming. Moore could not be sure, but said that carbon dioxide levels had been higher millions of years ago. "When there were no people," Rivers added. Moore answered, "Yes, but the Earth didn't burn up." Rep. John Olver (D-MA) responded to Moore's thesis by citing examples of warming adversely affecting climates. Watson warned that health experts believe warming would cause malaria to flourish, and noted that the Earth was already experiencing an increase in droughts and floods. Nierenberg chided the scientific community for not taking into account human inventiveness, saying, "I believe we will come up with some cure for malaria in the next 100 years." Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) admitted that "prevention is far cheaper and generally far better than anything we can do" afterwards. Nierenberg agreed that, in the short term, society should curtain emissions, "even if it costs a little bit." Ehlers also expressed concern over the charge that the Administration only supported "politically-correct science." Watson responded that they were "trying very, very hard to get a wide range of peer-review" to make that concern "a non-issue." He added that "science only progresses when you get a wide range of views." Rohrabacher ended the session by stating that he was "more skeptical now than before the hearing.... I find it impossible to understand that it's as significant as you say it is." ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Nov 22 21:09:39 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23481; Wed, 22 Nov 95 21:09:38 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa11584; 22 Nov 95 21:09 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05146; Wed, 22 Nov 95 18:05:30 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA11068; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 19:05:02 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 19:05:02 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, goldberg@unm.edu Subject: FYI #166 - NSF Data Book (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 166: November 22, 1995 NSF Provides Handy Booklet on Science and Technology Funding The Science Resources Studies Division of the National Science Foundation has put out an updated version of its handbook entitled "Science and Technology Pocket Data Book: 1994." The small reference handbook provides a number of useful statistics on S&T funding patterns from information compiled over the past decade. The book, NSF 94-323, can be obtained by calling (703) 306-1777. Most of the data are also available on the World Wide Web at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm. A sampling of the data is provided below: NATIONAL R&D FUNDING PATTERNS Expenditures for R&D in 1993 = $160.8 billion By Source: By Character of Work: Industry - 52% Development - 59% Federal Government - 42% Applied research - 25% Universities and Colleges - 4% Basic Research - 16% Other nonprofit institutions - 2% Employed FTE (full-time equivalent) R&D scientists and engineers in 1989 = 949,300 By Sector: Industry - 76% Universities, colleges and other nonproft institutions - 18% Federal Government - 6% Federal R&D budget authority, by function: 1995 Total R&D: Basic Research: Defense - 55% Health - 44% Health - 16% General science - 19% Space - 11% Space - 12% Other - 5% Defense - 9% General science - 4% Energy - 7% Energy - 4% Agriculture - 4% Environment - 3% Environment - 3% Agriculture - 2% Other - 2% ACADEMIC R&D EXPENDITURES By source of funds: 1993 By field: 1992 Federal Government - 57% Life science - 54% Universities and colleges - 19% Engineering - 16% Industry - 8% Physical sciences - 11% State and local governments - 8% Environmental - 7% Other nonprofit institutions - 8% Social sciences - 4% Mathematical & computer sciences - 4% Psychology - 2% Other sciences - 2% R&D IN US INDUSTRY Expenditures for industrial R&D, by source of funds: (millions of current dollars) Year Industry Federal 1970 $10,288 $7,306 1980 30,476 12,752 1985 57,043 25,333 1990 73,980 27,862 1991 76,938 22,586 1992 79,000 26,100 1993 (est) 81,300 28,300 EDUCATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS Doctorates awarded in major science and engineering fields Field 1982 1992 Physical sciences 2,694 3,749 Mathematics 720 1,058 Computer sciences 220 789 Environmental sciences 657 824 Psychology 3,159 3,252 Social sciences 3,077 3,388 Engineering 2,646 5,437 Biological and 4,844 5,857 agricultural sciences WORKING SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS Employed doctoral scientists, by sector: 1991 (Total = 367,440) Educational institutions - 50% Industry - 32% Federal Government - 6% Other - 5% Nonprofit organizations - 4% State and local governments - 3% PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD S&T Percentage saying that S&T has a positive or negative impact on...:1992 Issue Positive Negative Standard of living over 80% under 10% Public health just under 80% about 10% General working conditions over 70% just under 10% Enjoyment of life just over 70% about 10% World peace about 50% about 25% ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Dec 1 13:21:27 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05007; Fri, 1 Dec 95 13:21:25 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23398; 1 Dec 95 13:21 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA27005; Fri, 1 Dec 95 10:18:44 PST Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:18:44 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu, dman@lternet.edu Cc: Harvey Chinn Subject: Missouri Botanical Garden TROPICOS II (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:14:24 -0600 (CST) From: "Alan V. Tucker" Subject: Botanical Database at http://db.mobot.org Building on a fifteen-year history of botanical database development, the Missouri Botanical Garden is revising its comprehensive information system, TROPICOS. The new system incorporates the functionality of TROPICOS with the features of relational database technology. Visit the web site at http://db.mobot.org The web site includes a description of the project, demonstration screens, and a WWW interface to a prototype database. The WWW interface accommodates SQL queries through a forms interface. Those familiar with TROPICOS will notice dramatic changes in the user environment. The new system is Windows-based, providing a graphical user interface to the powerful features of the database. Because the new system resembles other Windows applications, Windows users will find it quite intuitive. Context-sensitive help screens will add to the system's user-friendliness. Additionally, WWW access to the database provides Internet users with a familiar interface. ------------------------- Alan V. Tucker Missouri Botanical Garden ------------------------- From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Dec 2 05:53:25 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07515; Sat, 2 Dec 95 05:53:24 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa06437; 1 Dec 95 23:10 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA04964; Fri, 1 Dec 95 20:08:56 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13384; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 21:08:33 -0700 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 21:08:33 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Problems with NSF funding Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I hope this helps convince everyone that we need to argue as strongly as we can that the LTER program must be supported at the current level. Keeping a flat budget may be a win! jim FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 168: December 1, 1995 Screws Tighten on NSF, NASA Funding; Commerce Bill Zeroes (?) ATP In two weeks the short-term money runs out which has kept the doors open at the National Science Foundation, NASA, and Department of Commerce. The outlook on keeping those doors open beyond that date became dimmer during the last few days following action on two appropriations bills. Look for the screws to tighten on the FY 1996 NASA and NSF budgets as House and Senate conferees shift money around to increase spending on veterans medical care (see FYI #167.) Last night, the President signed the defense appropriations bill that was $7 billion over the administration's request. Prior to Clinton's signature, there was hope that had this bill been vetoed, ultimately releasing some of this money, it could have funded the additional VA medical care from "outside" H.R. 2099. This bill provides money for the VA, NASA, NSF, HUD, EPA, and many smaller agencies. With this outside source of money no longer available, appropriators are going to have to look inside the bill. Available candidates for reductions in this bill are slim: VA funding will go up, and the administration has already loudly objected to cuts in the HUD and EPA budgets. That leaves NASA, with its $13.82 billion budget, and NSF's $3.18 billion budget as the remaining large pots of money. The House wants an additional $213 million for VA care. Even if the House and Senate sign-off on this bill next week, the President has already announced he will veto it because of cuts to housing, EPA, and the national service program budgets. The situation with the Commerce Department's FY 1996 budget is even more clouded. Wednesday, House and Senate conferees agreed on a final appropriations bill for the Commerce Department. Although the conference report will not be ready until next Monday, two administration sources report that the Advanced Technology Program was zeroed out by the conferees. This figure is not confirmed. The Administration requested $490.9 million for ATP. H.R. 2076 cut overall department funding approximately 25%. Having the extra $7 billion in DOD funding no longer available will make ultimate resolution of this bill even more difficult. Secretary Ronald Brown said the President "will surely veto" this bill. With such major differences between Congress and the Administration in these two bills, the chances for a quick settlement are not high. Making this even more complicated is the decision by the Republican congressional leadership to link the six unsigned appropriations bills to balanced budget legislation. Key players from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have been meeting this week - unsuccessfully - to reach some kind of compromise. "You can't divorce the appropriations bills from the reconciliation [overall budget] package," declared House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia). Breaking this logjam over NSF, NASA and Commerce funding will prove exceedingly difficult, since it will ultimately involve issues ranging from VA medical care to ATP funding to the size of the federal deficit in 2002. "It would be a miracle of major proportions to finish by mid-December" warns Senator Jim Exon (D-Nebraska). ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Dec 5 14:28:59 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17998; Tue, 5 Dec 95 14:28:57 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa15776; 5 Dec 95 14:28 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11770; Tue, 5 Dec 95 11:24:15 PST Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 11:24:15 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NBS, TNC, MONTANA LINK UP (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR For Immediate Release Contact: Anne Frondorf, 202-482-4545 December 4, 1995 Trudy Harlow, 202-482-3048 NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL SERVICE, MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY WILL PROVIDE ONLINE ACCESS TO DATA Internet users will soon be able to submit electronic requests and retrieve biodiversity data sets from the databases maintained by the Montana State Natural Heritage Program. Dr. H. Ronald Pulliam, National Biological Service (NBS) director, announced that the NBS has agreed to work on this pilot project with the Montana Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy. If this project proves successful, the approach could be implemented by other state natural heritage programs around the U.S. "State heritage programs maintain extremely useful data on the natural history of each state; these data are routinely relied on by developers, planners, local governments, and scientists," noted Pulliam. "We are excited to be working with the Montana Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy to explore how these useful data can be made even more readily accessible to the public." Natural Heritage databases across the country are valued by private sector organizations and individuals for their natural resources information that is critical to planning purposes, such as locations of species and habitats. This pilot project in Montana is an extension of a larger cooperative project NBS and the Conservancy began earlier this year to develop a network of electronic "home pages" for each of the 50 state heritage programs. These home pages provide access to summary information on the data sets, reports, and other services available from the individual state programs. This information will be accessible over the Internet, through the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). While the existing cooperative effort is providing access into this program- level information, the actual biological databases maintained by state heritage programs such as Montana are generally not directly accessible over the Internet. The pilot project will develop and evaluate techniques and procedures for supporting on-line data requests and fulfillment, while also allowing the Montana Natural Heritage Program to address issues relating to cost recovery for such services and maintaining adequate controls on data security and integrity. The electronic access to be provided will complement existing services and products provided by the Montana program to meet different client needs. Findings and results from the Montana pilot can be used by other state natural heritage programs that are interested in using the Internet to provide increased access to databases. The Montana State Natural Heritage Program, which is associated with the Montana State Library, has been in operation for more than 10 years. This program is part of an innovative state-level data clearinghouse, the Natural Resource Information System. The Montana Natural Heritage Program is available at http://nris.msl.mt.gov/mtnhp/nhp-dir.html The Nature Conservancy is an international non-profit organization devoted to the preservation of biological diversity. To achieve this mission, the Conservancy has established a cooperative network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers in more than 95 locations, including all 50 States and five Canadian provinces, Puerto Rico, the Navajo Nation, 14 countries in Latin America, countries in the Caribbean and the Pacific, and in units of the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. The Natural Heritage Network node is available on the Internet at http://www.abi.org The National Biological Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior works with others to provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support the sound management and conservation of our Nation's biological resources. The National Biological Information Infrastructure is an initiative of the NBS to foster the development of a distributed electronic network of biological data and information maintained by a variety of Federal and State government agencies, universities, museums, libraries, and private organizations. The NBII is available at http://www.nbs.gov/nbii/ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Dec 5 19:08:10 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18946; Tue, 5 Dec 95 19:08:06 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01378; 5 Dec 95 19:08 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13179; Tue, 5 Dec 95 14:27:35 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03562; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 15:27:14 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 15:27:14 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF PR 95-80 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 12:48:49 -0500 From: medwards@nsf.gov To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: NSF PR 95-80 Cheryl Dybas November 29, 1995 (703) 306-1070 NSF PR 95-80 SIGNALS FROM MICROSATELLITE GPS/MET GIVE ACCESS TO WEALTH OF NEW INFORMATION Highlight of December Conference Session The microsatellite for the National Science Foundation (NSF)funded global sensing project known as GPS/MET has been in orbit since April, and is allowing scientists unprecedented access to a wealth of information about Earths atmosphere, says Robert Corell, National Science Foundation assistant director for geosciences. A first look at this information will be presented in session G22B (Tuesday, December 12th at 1:30 PM in room 307) at the American Geophysical Union fall conference, to be held in San Francisco December 11-15. Applications of GPS/MET data include better weather forecasts, especially over the oceans, where data are now scarce. The Air Transport Association attributes a loss of at least $4 billion annually to weather-related aircraft delays. Since commercial transoceanic flights are increasing at twice the rate of domestic flights, better short-term forecasts could result in huge savings. Improved forecasts could also save lives and billions of dollars in property damage caused by floods, tornadoes, drought, and other disasters. The GPS/MET receiver, no larger than a shoebox, circles the earth every 100 minutes aboard the MicroLab-1 satellite. As it orbits, the receiver picks up signals transmitted from 24 GPS satellites. Approximately 500 times a day, the ray path between the receiver and one of the GPS satellites passes through the earths atmosphere. These events -- known as radio occultations -- provide a means to take soundings of the atmosphere. Scientists believed that these signals would provide a new way of obtaining vertical profiles of temperature, moisture, and other atmospheric parameters with improved resolution and frequency. Results to date are extremely promising, says Jay Fein, program director in NSFs atmospheric sciences division. Scientists believe that this microsatellite will allow more detailed detection of long-term, global changes in the atmosphere. Says Fein, For example, the atmospheres temperatures between about seven and 30 km can be tracked with precision by GPS/MET, providing scientists with information about the earth that they have never before been able to obtain. GPS/MET will serve as a much needed complement to a long used instrument: the radiosonde. An instrument package sent upward by balloon twice each day at approximately 1,000 locations worldwide, the radiosonde has endured for more than 50 years as the primary way to sense the atmospheres vertical structure. GPS/MET can perform these vertical scans in only a minute or two, compared to around 100 minutes for a radiosonde. And GPS/MET is unhindered by oceans or other settings where balloon launches are hard to conduct. Although radiosondes have the advantage of making separate temperature and humidity measurements, the indirect readings derived from GPS/MET may work as well as radiosonde data for short-term weather prediction, studies show. -end- Press releases and other information are now available electronically on NSFnews, a free service available via the Internet. To subscribe to NSFnews send an e-mail message to listmanager@nsf.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject line) type the words subscribe nsfnews and then type your name (not an e-mail address). For example: Subscribe nsfnews James Smith. The system will reply with a confirmation via e-mail. For additional information about NSFnews send another e-mail message to listmanager@nsf.gov and in the body of the message type the word help. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Dec 6 22:27:09 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA24363; Wed, 6 Dec 95 22:27:07 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa13008; 6 Dec 95 22:27 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01446; Wed, 6 Dec 95 19:24:36 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA17437; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:24:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:24:15 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Wetlands Report Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORf fyi This is an excellent and complete report on the dichotomy of federal programs effecting wetlands. Get one while you can. Ned Daly * * * * * * * * * * Due to severe storage space limitations, the Department of the Interior needs to distribute immediately (free of charge) the remaining 500 copies of a wetlands publication that will be of interest to university professors, local and regional conservation organizations, fiscal conservatives, and just about anyone else interested in resource conservation. The publication is a report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior: THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS ON WETLANDS, VOL. II, March 1994. The report describes various federal programs and subsidies (agricultural programs; water development and management programs; infrastructure, local development, and housing programs; and resource use, extraction, and development programs) and their effects on the nation's wetlands, and recommends appropriate changes. Regions of the country covered include: the Everglades, coastal Louisiana, Galveston Bay, Puerto Rico, California's Central Valley, western riparian areas, southeastern and western Alaska, the Delmarva Peninsula, North Carolina, northeastern New Jersey, Michigan, and Nebraska. If interested, please an e-mail message to John_Fisher@mail.fws.gov Indicate the number of copies which you would like, and we will mail the reports to you today. Boxes of 16 are available, as well as individual copies. We also have a few copies remaining (75) of Volume I of this report, covering the bottomland hardwood forests of the Mississippi Delta and the prairie pothole region of the Upper Midwest. If you are interested in either of these regions, we recommend that you request both volume I and II, because the program descriptions are more detailed and updated in Volume II. -------------------------------------------------------------- TAP-RESOURCES is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP). TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the management of government property, including information systems and data, government funded R&D, spectrum, allocation, public lands and mineral resources, and other government assets. TAP-RESOURCES reports on TAP activities relating to natural resources policy. To obtain further information about TAP send a note to tap@tap.org. Subscription requests to: listproc@tap.org with the message: subscribe tap-resources yourfirstname yourlastname --------------------------------------------------------------- Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet: tap@tap.org From bergsmat@pilot.msu.edu Fri Dec 8 12:34:13 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01349; Fri, 8 Dec 95 12:34:11 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab21980; 8 Dec 95 12:34 EST Received: from pilot08.cl.msu.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28104; Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:28:52 PST Received: by pilot08.cl.msu.edu (8.6.12/MSU-2.10) id MAA59940; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 12:28:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199512081728.MAA59940@pilot08.cl.msu.edu> Subject: EPA Fellowship address To: students@lternet.edu, pi@lternet.edu Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 12:28:32 -0500 (EST) From: Timothy Todd Bergsma X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 302 Status: OR As you may know, the originally-published email address for submitting EPA fellowship applications was incorrect. EPA has now published the correction. Original: feloship@epamail.gov Correct: feloship@epamail.epa.gov Tim Bergsma Graduate Student Michigan State University tbergsma@kbs.msu.edu From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Dec 8 16:32:05 1995 Received: from uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AB02500; Fri, 8 Dec 95 16:32:02 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26471; 8 Dec 95 15:25 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01063; Fri, 8 Dec 95 12:17:45 PST Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 12:17:45 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu Cc: sCollins@nsf.gov Subject: Re: Jornada LTER WWW Home Page Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The Jornada LTER now has a WWW home page online. You may wish to access it directly at URL http://jornada.nmsu.edu or via the Network Office home page via one of the following: What's New (from front page) http://lternet.edu/about/new.htm LTER Site Web Servers (via "Sites") http://lternet.edu/about/sites/lterwebs.htm Jornada site page (via "Sites") http://lternet.edu/about/sites/09_jrn.htm Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office From scoleman@llnl.gov Mon Dec 11 14:32:56 1995 Received: from anduin.ocf.llnl.gov by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10369; Mon, 11 Dec 95 14:32:49 EST Received: from pierce.llnl.gov by anduin.ocf.llnl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA14181; Mon, 11 Dec 95 09:56:45 PST Received: by pierce.llnl.gov (8.6.10/LLNL-1.18/llnl.gov-03.95) id JAA09841; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:56:44 -0800 Received: from popcorn.llnl.gov by pierce.llnl.gov (8.6.10/LLNL-1.18/llnl.gov-03.95) id JAA09760; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:56:28 -0800 Received: from [134.9.50.109] by popcorn.llnl.gov (8.6.10/LLNL-2.0) id JAA08488; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:44:59 -0800 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:44:59 -0800 X-Sender: e169343@128.115.18.60 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: mssspec@ecmwf.co.uk, hpss@clearlake.ibm.com, ieee-metadata@llnl.gov, nssf@clearlake.ibm.com, ieee+mss@larc.nasa.gov, unicos-l@cug.org, utug@lerc.nasa.gov From: scoleman@llnl.gov (Sam Coleman) Subject: Goddard Mass Storage Conference Call for Papers Status: OR CALL FOR PAPERS Fifth NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Conference on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies September 17 - 19, 1996 University of Maryland University College Conference Center College Park, MD, USA The Goddard Conference on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies provides a forum for discussion of issues relevant to federal agencies involved in the management of massive volumes of data. The Conference encourages all interested organizations to discuss long term mass storage requirements and experiences in fielding solutions. Emphasis is on current and future practical solutions addressing issues in data acquisition/ingest, storage systems and media, long term retention of data, data distribution, and data management. Program Committee Chair Ben Kobler, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Program Committee Members Jean-Jacques Bedet, Hughes STX John Berbert, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Jimmy Berry, Department of Defense Bill Callicott, NOAA /NESDIS (retired) Sam Coleman, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Charles Dollar, University of British Columbia, Canada Fynnette Eaton, National Archives and Records Administration P C Hariharan, Systems Engineering and Security, Inc. Bernie O'Lear, National Center for Atmospheric Research Sanjay Ranade, Infotech SA Inc. Bruce Rosen, National Institute of Standards and Technology Don Sawyer, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Pete Topoly, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Papers are invited in the following areas: * Media (Capacity and performance, archivability and longevity, environmental issues, predicting the future and reconciling past predictions, new developments in high density storage including magnetic, optical, holographic, CD-ROM) * Systems (Interface and standards, scalability, maintainability and evolution, integrity and backup, data organization and access, scheduling, modeling, requirements, functionality and performance, system integration, system management, data compression, data migration, metadata and long term preservation of information) * Technology drivers and evolution (Federal agency requirements, consumer market drivers, information highway, digital libraries, high performance computing) Paper Submission: A one page abstract is due February 19, 1996. Include: title, author name, organization, address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address. Notification of acceptance or rejection will be mailed April 15, 1996. A final paper is due July 8, 1996 for inclusion in the conference proceedings to be published as a NASA Conference Publication. Submit abstract to: Ben Kobler, Code 505 301-286-3553 Goddard Space Flight Center 301-286-0267 (fax) Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 ben.kobler@gsfc.nasa.gov Poster Session: A poster session will be held during the conference. Please label abstracts to be considered ONLY for the poster session, as "Poster Session." Vendor Briefing: A block of time will be provided during the conference, to allow vendors to present information on new products. Please label submitted abstracts as "Vendor Briefing." Vendor Exhibit Area: Space for vendor product exhibits will be available on a reservation basis, in order received. Contact Ben Kobler to register and to discuss space, tables, power requirements, and cost. Cost: $195 during pre-registration; $245 at check-in. CALENDAR February 19, 1996 Abstracts due April 15, 1996 Acceptance or rejection notifications mailed out May 10, 1996 Registration packets distributed July 8, 1996 Final paper due September 2, 1996 Pre-registration due Sept 17-19, 1996 Conference _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ | | | Sam Coleman _/ _/ | | | Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory _/ _/ | | |___ Mail Stop L-60 510-422-4323 _/ _/ | \____ 7000 East Avenue 510-423-8715 (FAX) _/ _/ \____ Livermore, CA 94550 scoleman@llnl.gov _/ _/ _/ _/ LLNL World Wide Web server: http://www.llnl.gov _/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Dec 11 19:34:41 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11791; Mon, 11 Dec 95 19:34:38 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05187; 11 Dec 95 18:28 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA03615; Mon, 11 Dec 95 15:22:08 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08063; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:21:50 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:21:50 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF 96-22 Announcement of Funding Opportunity - MMIA (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORf **************************************** METHODS AND MODELS FOR INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY RELATED TO THE NSF GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT OF SPECIAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY SUBMISSION DEADLINE: March 11, 1996 Methods and Models for Integrated Assessment (MMIA) Announcement of a Research Funding Opportunity Methods and Models for Integrated Assessment (MMIA) is a funding opportunity for global change research at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Assessing the combined influence of multiple systems is central to understanding important issues such as global environmental change, large-scale technological change, and international socio-political evolution. Integrated assessment refers to approaches for examining the complex interactions among Earth's physical, biological, and human systems. The integrated assessment approach involves the use of quantitative models and other methods to understand individual component systems and their interactions, with particular emphasis on how changes in one or more component systems will impact other systems. The goal of the MMIA competition is to support methodological research that will advance the design and conduct of integrated assessments. Federal agencies participating in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (US/GCRP) have identified integrated assessment as an important approach for providing information to policy and decision makers. In addition to providing information about the dynamics of change, integrated assessments will assist policy makers by providing a framework for identifying and evaluating likely consequences of different environmental policies. Description In concert with other US/GCRP agencies, NSF has established MMIA to sponsor high-quality, fundamental and methodological research in two related categories: (1) research that advances the development of methodologies and models that will integrate or couple multiple component systems; and (2) research that develops and enhances the scientific components of the integrated approach. For both research categories, NSF encourages participation and collaboration of researchers from all appropriate scientific and engineering disciplines, including the mathematical sciences. In FY 1995, NSF awarded approximately $3.4 M through the special MMIA competition. Funding in FY 1996 is anticipated at approximately the same level, depending on availability of funds. A special competition for MMIA proposals will be conducted in the Spring of 1996. Evaluation of proposals in this special competition will include reviews by external experts and by a multidisciplinary panel. Evaluation of proposals will be based on the four standard NSF evaluation criteria: (1) research performance competence; (2) intrinsic merit of the research; (3) utility or relevance of the research; and (4) effect of the research on the infrastructure of science and engineering. Proposals submitted for this competition must be postmarked no later than March 11, 1996. Research to Integrate Multiple Components Proposals addressing the overall analytical approach should describe research intended to improve methods for integrated assessment. Because of the nature of this research, NSF expects most awards in this category to be interdisciplinary in scope and to focus on the linkages among multiple human and natural systems with reference to high priority global change policy issues (such as national economic welfare, international technological change, or regional ecological impacts). Examples of research in this category include rigorous modeling methods and algorithms that link or couple atmospheric, ecological, and socio-economic systems; validation of the models and sensitivity analysis of the data; statistical approaches to combining information, including substantive knowledge, models, and data; treatment of uncertainty and risk in integrated systems; development of integrated assessment model building and validation techniques; and approaches to prediction for large-scale, complex, and stochastic systems. Proposals addressing the integration or coupling of multiple systems are expected to indicate the scientific merit of the proposed research, and the policy relevance of the anticipated results. They may also propose specific activities, such as workshops and briefings, to foster interactions and communications between the policy and research communities. Although participation by researchers in specific disciplines is not required, the Foundation encourages investigators to demonstrate substantial contributions from the mathematical, statistical, natural, and social sciences in their research plans. Enhancement of Scientific Components MMIA will also support more focused research in disciplinary methods and components of the global change research program that contribute to the objectives of this special funding opportunity. This research will emphasize improved understanding of the topical and methodological components of integrated assessments. For example, MMIA will support research expected to reduce uncertainty about critical processes, to fill knowledge gaps, and to improve the validity and reliability of the component science. Examples of research in this category include further analysis of environmental change variables; modeling of physical and human processes related to global change; modeling ecosystem function and value; modeling adaptive behavioral and social responses to environmental change; computational and modeling methods to address uncertainty, vulnerabilities, surprise scenario forecasts, and simulation; and modeling international growth, competitiveness, and security in the context of resource sustainability. MMIA also seeks to support research on higher-dimensional statistical inference techniques. Examples include extensions of inferential technologies to the dimensions needed to construct bridges between Earth-system-data and policy relevant questions regarding global change and evaluation of the efficacy of methods for integrated assessment through analyses of their use in actual assessments. Proposals that emphasize component science topics must include a statement demonstrating how the proposed research responds to the science needs of integrated assessments for global change research. Proposal Submission Information All institutions eligible to receive support from the NSF research directorates may submit proposals in response to this announcement. The Foundation also has express statutory authority to support research performed by other Federal agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). The Foundation ordinarily does not encourage research proposals from other Federal agencies or FFRDCs; however, for this particular announcement the Foundation will consider proposals for research and logistic support activities of other Federal agencies or FFRDCs directed to the goals of special national and international research programs for which the Foundation bears special responsibility. Scientists from other federal agencies or FFRDCs are encouraged to participate by developing collaborations with university scientists. Any proposals under this category should not include costs related to Civil Service salaries for federal scientists. Preparation and submission of proposals must follow the guidelines given in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (NSF 95-27). Note especially that there is a limit of 15 pages for the Project Description section, including text as well as visual materials. In general, letters of endorsement and other appendices are disallowed. Proposals will be reviewed in accordance with established Foundation procedures and the four general criteria described in GPG. GPG also includes all required NSF forms. To obtain a copy contact: NSF Forms and Publication Unit 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 Tel: (703) 306-1130 FAX: (703) 644-4278 Internet: pubs@nsf.gov Special Reporting Requirements MMIA projects that will produce data and information that can be used by other global change researchers must include a special information and supplementary documentation section (Proposal Section I) titled "Data and Information Availability." Section I is described in detail on page 10 of the GPG and is not counted in the 15-page Project Description limitation. This discussion, not to exceed four additional pages, should describe the data and information products, the management plans for their validation, quality control and archiving, and the costs for these activities. Submitted proposals must clearly identify the number of this NSF announcement. Proposals should be mailed to: Announcement No. Proposal Processing Unit, Rm. 60 National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 For more information on this program, please contact; Dr. Robin Cantor Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences PH: (703) 306-1757 FAX: (703) 306-0485 Internet: rcantor@nsf.gov Dr. Al Thaler Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences PH: (703) 306-1880 FAX: (703) 306-0555 Internet: athaler@nsf.gov --or-- Dr. Keith Crank Program Director for Statistics & Probability Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences PH: (703) 306-1885 FAX: (703) 306-0555 Internet: kcrank@nsf.gov Dr. Jay Fein Directorate for Geosciences PH: (703) 306-1527 FAX: (703) 306-0377 Internet: jfein@nsf.gov Dr. Richard Lambert Division of Ocean Sciences PH: (703) 306-1583 FAX: (703) 306-0390 Internet: rlambert@nsf.gov Dr. J. Thomas Callahan Directorate for Biological Sciences PH: (703) 306-1479 FAX: (703) 306-0367 Internet: jcallaha@nsf.gov Dr. Bernhard Lettau Office of Polar Programs PH: (703) 306-1033 FAX: (703) 306-0139 Internet: blettau@nsf.gov Related Funding Opportunities Other Federal agencies have been working with NSF to advance research on integrated assessments related to global change. Investigators may wish to obtain information about the following related funding opportunities: Department of Energy The Environmental Sciences Division of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy expects to solicit applications on Integrated Assessment of Global Climate Change Research, subject to availability of funds. The notice of this solicitation is expected to appear in the Federal Register late in 1995; applications will be due early in 1996. For further information, contact John Houghton; Environmental Sciences Division, Office of Energy Research; ER-74; U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C., 20585; Phone: (301) 903-8288; Internet: john.houghton@oer.doe.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Within the context of its Economics and Human Dimensions of Climate Fluctuations Program, the Office of Global Programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will support research that identifies and analyzes social and economic impacts associated with seasonal, year-to-year and intradecadal climate variability, improves our understanding of factors that determine human vulnerability to such fluctuations, and identifies options for reducing vulnerability. The program is particularly interested in learning how advanced climate information, as well as an improved understanding of current coping mechanisms, could be used for reducing vulnerability and providing for more efficient adjustment to these variations. Notice of this program is included in the Program Announcement for NOAA's Climate and Global Change Program, which is published each spring in the Federal Register. The deadline for proposals to be considered in Fiscal Year 1997 is expected to be in late summer 1996. For further information, contact: Claudia Nierenberg; Office of Global Programs; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 1225; Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone: (301) 427-2089, Ext. 46; Internet: nierenberg@ogp.noaa.gov. For Further Information Identical information on the Methods and Models for Integrated Assessment funding opportunity is available on the NSF homepage. The direct address is . An awards list for the FY 1995 opportunity and other related information is also available at this address. NSF also maintains an electronic mailing list of individuals interested in MMIA and other related funding opportunities. Additions, deletions, or changes for the list should be sent to . Grant General Conditions NSF provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for the research findings or the interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and related programs described here. In accordance with federal statutes, regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provides funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (Investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on an NSF project. See the program announcement or contact the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636. Programs described in this publication are included in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under the following categories: 47.050, Geosciences; 47.049, Mathematical and Physical Sciences; 47.074, Biological Sciences; and 47.075, Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences . Privacy Act and Public Burden Information requested on NSF application materials is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be used and disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process; to provide or obtain data regarding the application review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contactors, experts, volunteers, and researchers as necessary to complete assigned work;; and to other government agencies in order to coordinate programs. See Systems of Records NSF-50, Principal Investigator/ Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF 51, "Reviewer/ Proposals File and Associated Records," 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995). Reviewer/ Proposal File and Associated Records, 59 Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Herman G. Fleming Reports Clearance Officer Division of CPO, NSF Arlington, VA 22230 The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment, or general information. To access NSF TDD dial (703) 306-0090; for FIRS, 1-800-877-8339. OMB 3145-0058 PT 34 KW 0404000, 0411009, 1000000, 1013000, 1010000, 1010017, 0740405, 0408000, 0411000, 0412000, 1004117, 0411004, 0408012, 0411005, 0411015 NSF 96-22 (Replaces NSF 95-9) From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Dec 19 13:54:38 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02588; Tue, 19 Dec 95 13:54:35 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05669; 19 Dec 95 13:54 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07537; Tue, 19 Dec 95 10:48:47 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00135; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:48:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:48:32 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Call for inputs on forests (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ============================================================================= * Original Message * From : aydin@un.org, 2:2/501 * To : Nishu Aggarwal, 5:731/1.159 * On : Thursday December 07 1995 at 23:58 * Subj : call for inputs on forests @REPLYADDR aydin@un.org From: aydin@un.org PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED CALL TO ALL INTERESTED NGOS AND MAJOR GROUPS FOR INPUT TO THE WORK OF THE INTER-GOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON FORESTS. THE CALL INCLUDES CONTACT PERSONS IN THE IPF SECRETARIAT AND IN UN AGENCIES. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO DISTRIBUTE THIS CALL FOR INPUTS AMONG YOUR NETWORKS AND PARTNERS. COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON FORESTS CALL FOR MAJOR GROUP INPUT During the third session of the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1995, it was decided to establish an Intergovernmental Panel on Forest. This Panel would look at an array of forest related issues over a 18 month period. A work programme was decided upon during the first meeting of the Panel in September 1995. Eleven programme elements are divided into five interrelated categories: I Implementation of UNCED decisions related to forests at the national and international level including an examination of sectoral and cross-sectoral linkages. II International cooperation in financial assistance and technology transfer; III Scientific research, forest assessment and development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management; IV Trade and environment relating to forest products and services. V International organizations and multilateral institutions and instruments including appropriate legal mechanisms; The organization of the preparations for the meetings of the Panel is following the rules and modalities used by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development itself. International organizations constituting the informal Inter Agency Task Force have agreed among each other which agency should take the lead in preparing the individual reports on each programme element in coordination with other concerned organizations and the Secretariat of IPF. The IPF agreed to this arrangement at its first session. In preparation for the second meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forest, the Secretariat and the Lead Agencies for the different programme elements of the work of the Panel are now looking for inputs by major groups and NGOs. Primarily but not exclusively they would welcome input on those programme elements to be discussed substantively at the second session to be held in Geneva 11-22 March 1996, namely I.2 ("...causes of deforestation..."), I.4 ("...afforestation reforestation and the restoration ... fragile ecosystems...affected by desertification/drought.... pollution.."), I.5 ("...needs and requirements...countries with low forest cover.."), II ("...efficiency and coordination... assistance... transfer..technology...financial resources...") and III.1 ("...assessment... scientific knowledge... valuing multiple benefits..."). The remaining programme elements would undergo only an initial discussion at the second meeting. The third session, to be held provisionally in Geneva 2-13 September 1996, would substantively discuss I.1 ("...progress through national forests and land use plans...."), I.3 ('...traditional forest related knowledge..."), III.2 ("...criteria and indicators..."), IV ("...trade...environment... cost internalization...certification and labelling..."), V.1 ("...institutions...instruments..."). Items II and III.1 would again be discussed substantively and a progress report would be prepared on other items. The fourth and last meeting will be held sometime early in 1997 in order to finalize the report of the Panel, to be submitted to the fifth session of the CSD, to be held in the spring of 1997 Contact can be made with any of the Secretariat and lead agency focal points for the different programme elements listed below. The first drafts of the reports for the second meeting of the IPF should reach the Secretariat by 11 December 1995, and the final version should be ready by 12 January 1996. Therefore, any input to these reports should reach the lead agency focal point concerned as soon as possible. P.E. SECRETARIAT LEAD AGENCY I.1 Milagre Nuvunga Jean Clement FAO Ph: 1-212-906 5822 39-6-52253589 Fax:1-212-906 6973 39-6-5225 5137 E-mail: milagre.nuvunga@undp.org jeanclaude.clement@fao.org I.2 Elisabeth Barsk-Rundquist Ralph Schmidt UNDP Ph: 1-212-963-3263 1-212-906 5088 Fax: 1-212-9631795 1-212-906 6973 E-mail:barsk-rundquiste@un.org ralph.schmidt@undp.org I.3 Maria Espinosa Ahmed Djoghlaf CBD Ph: 1-212-906-5647 41-22-979 9399 Fax: 1-212-906 6973 41-22-797 2512 E-mail: maria.espinosa@undp.org adjoughlaf@smtpunep.unep.ch I.4 Tage Michaelsen Jim Ball (Air Pollution) FAO Ph: Ph: 1-1-212-963 5294 39-6-5225 4047 Fax:1-212- 963 3463 39-6-5225 5137 E-mail: michaelsen@un.org james.ball@fao.org Michel Malagnoux (Arid Zones) FAO Ph: 39-6- 5225 3213 Fax: 39-6-5225 5137 E-mail: michel.malagnoux@fao.org I.5 Milagre Nuvunga Ph: 1-212-906 5822 Fax:1-212-906 6973 E-mail: milagre.nuvunga@undp.org II Roslan Ismail Ralph Schmidt UNDP Ph: 1-212-963 8762 1-212-906 5088 Fax: 1-212-963 3463 1-212-906 6973 E-mail: ismailr@un.org ralph.schmidt@undp.org III.1 Tage Michaelsen Klaus Janz (Assessment) FAO Ph: 1-1-212-963 5294 39-6-5225 3261, Fax: 1-212- 963 3463 39-6-5225 5137 E-mail: michaelsen@un.org klaus.janz@fao.org Horst Wagner (Valuation) World Bank Ph: 1-202-458 1916 Fax: 1-202-522 142 E-mail: hwagner@worldbank.org III.2 Jag Maini Christel Palmberg FAO Ph:1-212-963 3160 39-6-5225 3841 Fax:1-212-963 3463 39-6-5225 5137 E-mail: christel.palmberg@fao.org Paul Vantomme FAO Ph: 39-6-5225 4064 Fax: 39-6-5225 5137 E-mail: paul.vantomme@fao.org IV Roslan Ismail Jimmy Aggrey-Orleans ITTO Ph: 1-212-963 8762 81-45-223 1110 Fax: 1-212-963 3463 81-45-223-1111 E-mail: ismailr@un.org postmaster@itto.or.jp V.1 Elisabeth Barsk-Rundquist IPF Secretariat Ph: 1-212-963-3263 Fax: 1-212-9631795 E-mail:barsk-rundquiste@un.org V.2 Jag Maini IPF Secretariat Ph:1-212-963 3160 Fax:1-212-963 3463 E-mail: ============================================================================= --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nishu Aggarwal E-mail: nishu@elci.sasa.unep.no P.O. Box 72461 Ph(W): +254-2-562022, 562015 Nairobi Fax: +254-2-562175 Fax: +254-2-562175 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ The previous post is from EcoNet, a non-profit telecommunications network working for progressive social change, and a member of the Association for Progressive Communications with Consultive Status with the UN ECOSOC. For more information on EcoNet, Peacenet or the APC, send a blank email message to econet-info@igc.apc.org;peacenet-info@igc.apc.org or apc-info@igc.apc.org. ------------------------------------------ From adub@lternet.edu Wed Dec 20 17:03:43 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09461; Wed, 20 Dec 95 17:03:41 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02894; 20 Dec 95 17:03 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15543; Wed, 20 Dec 95 13:56:56 PST Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 13:56:56 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener X-Sender: adub@lternet.washington.edu To: exec@lternet.edu, pi@lternet.edu Subject: April CC Meeting: Konza Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs, Exec Committee, and LTER Committee Chairs, Please mark your calendars for the Next LTER Coordinating Committee Meeting: APRIL 24-26, 1996, KONZA PRAIRIE LTER SITE, Manhattan, Kansas MEETING SCHEDULE: TUESDAY, APRIL 23 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FLY-IN DAY WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24 COORDINATING COMMITTEE FLY-IN DAY 8:30 AM Executive Committee meets, Kansas State Univ. Evening: Exec dinner / Coordinating Committee Social THURSDAY, APRIL 25 8:30 AM Coordinating Committee meets, Kansas St. Univ. 12:30 PM Depart for Konza Field Trip, Bison Barbecue, & return to hotel in Manhattan FRIDAY, APRIL 26 8:30 AM Coordinating Committee meeting continues 2:00 PM Meeting adjourns ** SCHEDULE DEPARTURES AFTER 3:00 PM ** ----------------------------------------------------------------- ***PLEASE CONFIRM YOUR ATTENDANCE WITH THE LTER NETWORK OFFICE*** ----------------------------------------------------------------- AIRLINE TRAVEL: The LTER Network Office will pay travel expenses for 1 representative per LTER site, ** PLUS ** Executive Committee members and Committee Chairs. OFFICIAL SITE REPS, EXECS, AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS: DIRECT-BILL YOUR AIRLINE TICKETS TO THE NETWORK OFFICE THROUGH AMBASSADOR TRAVEL: 1-800-233-8263, OR (206) 623-0484. Tell them you are attending the LTER Coordinating Committee meeting, and your ticket is to be billed to the LTER account. Please plan your arrival and departure according to the agenda shown above. If your itinerary includes any non-LTER travel, please be sure to find out the price difference so you can reimburse the Network Office. Additional meeting and lodging information will be sent at a later date. We are also setting up a web site where current meeting information will be maintained, so stay tuned for details. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrienne Whitener Phone: (206) 543-4853 LTER Network Office Fax: (206) 543-7295 Univ. of Washington E-mail: AWhitener@LTERnet.edu Box 352100 Seattle, WA 98195-2100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Dec 21 12:40:22 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11864; Thu, 21 Dec 95 12:40:18 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab06986; 21 Dec 95 12:33 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22779; Thu, 21 Dec 95 09:28:40 PST Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 09:28:40 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NBS Report--"Our Living Resources" (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The US National Biological Service issued its major US national biological status and trends report, "Our Living Resources," in August 1995. If you didn't receive previous notification of its availability, you may be interested in the following information (forwarded from the BENE listserver and) copied out of the beginning of the report, along with an on-line brochure and order form. You can find the "order form" on the "NBS Home Page Version 2a-Server 1" at URL: http://164.159.188.70/ and the entire report is up on the Web on the same NBS Folio infobase server at the following *long* URL (continuous, no spaces or line breaks): http://164.159.188.70/folio.pgi/resource.nfo/query=*/doc/{@1}/hit_headin gs/words=4/hits_only?firsthit * * * * * * * Our Living Resources A Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems Senior Science Editor and Project Director Edward T. LaRoe National Biological Service Managing Editor Gaye S. Farris National Biological Service Senior Technical Editor Catherine E. Puckett Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., and University of Southwestern Louisiana Graphics Editor Peter D. Doran Bureau of Land Management Science Editor Michael J. Mac National Biological Service U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service Washington, D.C. 1995 Foreword The nation's biological resources are the basis of much of our current prosperity and an essential part of the wealth that we will pass on to future generations. Like other forms of wealth, biological diversity constitutes a resource that must be conserved and managed carefully. Proper management of any resource requires (1) inventorying and monitoring the resource, (2) understanding the factors determining its supply and demand, and (3) analyzing options for current and future uses of the resource. Inventory and monitoring is the essential first step in taking stock of the wealth represented in our living resources and planning for their conservation and use. This report, "Our Living Resources", is the first product of the Status and Trends Program in the National Biological Service. The report compiles, for scientists, managers, and the lay public, information on many species and the ecosystems on which they depend. As a first step toward a consistent, large-scale understanding of the status and trends of these resources, this report brings together for the first time a host of information about our nation's biological wealth, highlighting causes for both comfort and concern. The report provides valuable information about causes for the decline of some species and habitats. It also gives insight into successful management strategies that have resulted in recovery of others. The report will also serve as a useful guide for identifying research needs by revealing information gaps that must be filled if we are to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of both current conditions and the anticipated impact of change. The mission of the National Biological Service is to work with others to provide the information and technologies needed to manage and conserve the nation's biological resources. As the biological science arm of the Department of the Interior, "with neither regulatory nor resource-management responsibilities," NBS has as its primary responsibility serving the biological science needs of other Department of the Interior bureaus. NBS also has a broader role of working with other federal agencies, states, universities, museums, private organizations, and landowners in a "National Partnership" to ensure that a more comprehensive and consistent approach is taken to providing information about the nation's biological resources. All of the players in this new partnership have long and rich histories of collecting and interpreting biological information. The National Biological Service will work with its partners to supplement and integrate this scientific information and make it more accessible. Our Living Resources is a prime example of NBS's partnership approach. Authors are drawn from more than 15 federal agencies, 15 state agencies, 25 universities, and 13 private organizations. In some cases, individual papers are themselves products of interagency or intergovernmental partnerships. Statistically reliable information on the status and trends of biological resources is an essential step towards better stewardship of our nation's biological wealth. Equally important is an intensive research program aimed at understanding what factors are responsible for biological changes and the incorporation of that understanding into resource management and policy decisions. NBS works closely with resource managers and other decision makers to analyze how natural forces and human activities affect biological resources and to predict how alternative management and policy decisions might improve or degrade those resources. NBS is committed to providing better information and making that information easily accessible not only to those who manage and regulate how we use natural resources but also to every American who makes economic use or seeks recreation or simply cherishes the beauty of our living resources. More reliable information and better access to that information will result in better and fairer decisions and a more prosperous future for all Americans. /s/ H. Ronald Pulliam Director, National Biological Service Preface This report is the first of a series of reports on the status and trends of the nation's plants, animals, and ecosystems. It represents an effort to bridge the gap between scientists and resource managers, policy makers, and the general public. Usually, scientists tend to write for scientific journals and communicate with other scientists; this report attempts to collect a great variety of scientific data and interpret it for the nonscientist while maintaining the full credibility of the data. The articles included represent both invited and contributed papers; that is, where we could identify specific subject experts, we invited them to submit papers, and we also accepted papers contributed by other authors. Following scientific tradition, each article submitted was peer-reviewed, usually by three anonymous scientific reviewers. The articles are often abridged from a complete scientific treatise, but each article contains references and personal contacts if the reader is interested in pursuing the subject in greater depth. Finally, we recognize that this report is incomplete and that more status and trends data exist than we were able to uncover or incorporate into one volume. In Memoriam Edward Terhune LaRoe III Senior science editor Ted LaRoe died of cancer October 19, 1994, having shepherded this report almost to its completion. Had he lived to see Our Living Resources published, he would not have lingered to bask in its accomplishment. He would have moved on to new projects, new plateaus, for Ted always had a vision, a sense of where he was going. He also had a vision for the National Biological Service, which he was instrumental in helping to create. Ted was bright, creative, inquisitive, inspiring, and a man of many accomplishments. His scientific leadership was evident in his active role in issues relating to wetland science, global climate change, coastal resources, ecosystem-based management, and, of course, NBS. Above all, he was a champion of scientific integrity, which, we trust, is evident in this report. We hope he would have been pleased. * * * * * * * Our Living Resources: Brochure and Order Form Environmental Scientists Ecologists Biology Professors Natural Resource Managers How Healthy Are American Ecosystems? You can decide for yourself with Our Living Resources, a fact-filled book on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. This comprehensive resource: highlights the nation's biological wealth and concerns identifies causes for the decline of some species and habitats describes successful management strategies that have helped recover some declining species and habitats provides the scientific information necessary to help manage and conserve the nation's biological resources gives statistically reliable information on the status and trends of biological resources identifies factors that cause biological changes analyzes how natural forces and human activity affect biological resources looks at alternative management and policy decisions that might help improve the use of biological resources . and much more! Our Living Resources, published by the National Biological Service of the Department of the Interior, includes nearly 200 peer-reviewed articles. The book also includes population data, trends graphics, and distribution maps for selected species throughout the United States. It covers ... taxonomic groups -- birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, plants and invertebrates geographic areas -- Alaska, Hawaii, Great Plains, and Interior West ecosystem types -- aquatic, riparian, terrestrial, and coastal marine impact assessment -- global climate change, human influences, and habitat assessments Tabular and graphical data make this 530-page book especially useful to scientists. Also included are charts, maps, and color photos. Visit your nearest U.S. Government Bookstore for the latest in Government Information Also available from Island Press. Call 1-800-828-1302 for pricing or FAX inquiry to 202-983-6414. The Superintendent of Documents operates 24 bookstores across the nation. Each store carries the most popular titles and can order any item in our 12,000 title inventory. Store locations sometimes change, and hours vary, so call ahead before visiting. Check your yellow pages for the store nearest you. Atlanta, Birmingham, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Laurel, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Portland, Pueblo, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, D.C. [reformatted to save space] * * * * * * * ORDER FORM Order Processing Code *3211 Charge Your Order to VISA or Master Card FAX your order to (202) 512-2250 Phone your order to (202) 512-1800 YES, send me _____ copies of Our Living Resources, 024-101-00708-7, at $44 each ($55 foreign) so I can find out about the distribution, abundance, and health of American plants, animals, and ecosystems. The total cost of my order is $ _______. Price includes regular shipping and handling and is subject to change. ___________________________________________________ Company or personal name (Please type or print) ___________________________________________________ Additional address/attention line ___________________________________________________ Street address ___________________________________________________ City, State, Zip code ___________________________________________________ Daytime phone including area code ___________________________________________________ Purchase order number (optional) Check method of payment __ Check payable to Superintendent of Documents __ GPO Deposit Account __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -- __ __ VISA __ Master Card __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (expiration date) Thank you for your order! ____________________________________________________ Authorizing signature 8/95 Mail to: Superintendent of Documents P.O. Box 371954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 Important: Please include this completed order form with your remittance. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 15:00:25 PST From: Alan McGowen To: bene@straylight.tamu.edu, consbio@u.washington.edu Cc: amcgowen@hposl02.cup.hp.com Subject: Re: ESA - Undue Credit (fwd) Message-ID: <9512202300.AA02340@hposl02.cup.hp.com> FYI, More anti-ESA propaganda from the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" , courtesy of a certain Julian Simon-style antienvironmentalist on the ecol-econ list. Comments to the list would be appreciated. (It is at ecol-econ@csf.colorado.edu, but unfortunately you need to do a listserv subscription at listserv@csf.colorado.edu to be able to send them.) Alan McGowen > >The following Competitive Enterprise Institute critique of Fish and Wildlife >Service scorekeeping on the Endangered Species Act addresses the issue of >sloppy science in the field of species recovery documentation: > >Forward >----------------------------------------- From: cei@access.digex.net (Competitive Enterprise Institute) To: cei@digex.com (Recipients of the CEI List) Taking Undue Credit for Saving Endangered Species by Brian Seasholes Appeared in the Washington Times, November 24, 1995, p. A23. Environmental lobbyists and the federal government constantly assert that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a monumental success. In late October, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released its 1994 Report to Congress which purports to document "the success of the Service's efforts to recover" species listed under the ESA. The report's main point is that the longer a species is listed, the greater the chance it is doing well. Ironically, the report fails to substantiate this claim because the data on which it is based are fundamentally flawed. The FWS has no comprehensive data on how various species were doing when they were listed, nor how they have fared in the intervening years. Absent these indispensable reference points, the data are nothing but selective snapshots. For example, the Tinian monarch (a species of bird in the south Pacific) was listed when the ESA was passed. The monarch had declined due to heavy fighting in WW II, but "[i]t is likely that the species had recovered to near pre-disturbance [prewar] levels by the time the Service listed," admits the FWS. Even though the ESA had nothing to do with the monarch's rebound, the FWS still claims credit for its "stabilization." There are other problems with the report. Many "improving" or "stabilized" species did not achieve their status as a result of the ESA any more than the Tinian monarch. For example, the peregrine falcon in the western U.S. is labeled as "improving." The peregrine declined over much of this area due to the pesticide DDT, which caused widespread reproductive failure. Yet DDT was banned in 1972, one year before the ESA was passed. The ESA cannot claim credit for the single most important reason for the peregrine's rebound. Moreover, approximately 250 out of 783 peregrine pairs are "data errors;" which means they existed all along but were not discovered until after listing. And finally, the report claims the peregrine "benefitted greatly...from...broad-based public involvement in the raising of thousands of falcons in captivity for their eventual reintroduction to the wild." In reality, peregrine breeding efforts are almost totally due to one private group, the Peregrine Fund. Tom Cade, founder of the Peregrine Fund, contends that with or without FWS funding, his organization would have undertaken equally successful captive breeding and reintroduction efforts. A further measure of the ESA's effectiveness is recovery goals achieved. The report states recovery is "the ultimate purpose of the endangered species program." The "primary objectives" are to complete and implement recovery plans and then delist the species. Recovery plans have specific goals which, if met, should lead to species' recovery. Thus the 54 percent of listed species with recovery plans are those for which the ESA should be working most effectively. In order to quantify the progress made by individual species towards achieving their recovery goals, the report assigns a numerical value of 1 to signify that 0-25 percent of the goals have been achieved; 2 for 26-50 percent; 3 for 51-75 percent; and 4 for 76-100 percent. These four categories, however, are useless because of the inconsistency of recovery goals. The California Condor, for example, has one recovery goal that requires spending $7 million to acquire habitat, an obviously expensive and complex undertaking. But another recovery goal for the condor is to provide private landowners with information at the cost of $6,000, a relatively simple and inexpensive goal. Without any measure of the magnitude of individual recovery goals, the percentage of recovery goals achieved is a meaningless statistic. But, for argument's sake, let's suppose the percentage of recovery goals achieved is meaningful. The FWS seems to think so. "Overall, the data on stable or increasing species illustrates that while recovery of listed species takes time it can be achieved," proclaims the report. One would expect those species that are improving or stabilized, and have achieved the greatest percentage of their recovery goals (76-100 percent), to be the exemplars of ESA success. Yet only 12 species (5 percent) have reached this level. Of these lucky dozen, the status of at least one third has had little, if anything, to do with the act. This calls into doubt the relevance of recovery goals achieved to species' status. Casting even more doubt over the connection between the ESA and species' status is that fully 80 percent of the species that are improving or stabilized have achieved less than half their recovery goals. In short, the FWS' claim that its "data on stable and increasing species illustrates that while recovery of listed species takes times it can be achieved" is bogus. The FWS made similar claims of ESA success in its 1990 Report to Congress. Research by the National Wilderness Institute showed that the incompleteness of the data invalidated the FWS' claims. For the 1994 Report to Congress the FWS has massaged the data differently, but the same fundamental deficiencies remain. By falsely attributing species' status to the Act, the FWS is misleading Congress and the public about the ESA. FWS claims notwithstanding, the ESA has little to do with species' status. Just don't expect the FWS to admit this anytime soon. Tagline: Brian Seasholes is an Environmental Research Associate at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. _______ ________ __________ / | | | |_______ | | | | \ _______ |_______ __________ COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 1001 Connecticut Ave. NW #1250 Washington, DC 20036 202-331-1010, fax 202-331-0640 Permission to reprint must be obtained from the publishing journal listed above. Permission to copy granted as long as these lines are left intact. To subscribe to the cei list, send a message to CEI@digex.com. "The Virtual Hand: CEI's free-market guide to the information superhighway" is available for $5. CEI's monthly newsletter, "CEI UpDate," is free to contributors of $25. ------------------------------ End of BENE Digest 398 ********************** From adub@lternet.edu Thu Dec 21 19:42:15 1995 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12962; Thu, 21 Dec 95 19:42:13 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa24026; 21 Dec 95 19:41 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24940; Thu, 21 Dec 95 16:38:35 PST Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 16:38:30 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener X-Sender: adub@lternet.washington.edu To: exec@lternet.edu, pi@lternet.edu Subject: Konza meeting Web page Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI: Current information about the April Coordinating Committee meeting at the Konza Prairie LTER site will be maintained at the following Web address: http://lternet.edu/meetings/konza.htm (This page is not linked to the LTER or any other Web sites, since meeting attendance is limited to LTER representatives.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrienne Whitener Phone: (206) 543-4853 LTER Network Office Fax: (206) 543-7295 Univ. of Washington E-mail: AWhitener@LTERnet.edu Box 352100 Seattle, WA 98195-2100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Jan 19 23:16:22 1996 Received: from uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AB29738; Fri, 19 Jan 96 23:16:18 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26031; 19 Jan 96 19:33 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21196; Fri, 19 Jan 96 16:27:34 PST Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 16:27:34 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: elnino@lternet.edu Subject: El Nino Web site, FYI Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Some of you may be interested to view NOAA's El Nino Theme Page, if you aren't already familiar with it: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/toga-tao/el-nino/home.html From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Jan 23 12:37:36 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07798; Tue, 23 Jan 96 12:37:34 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa03225; 23 Jan 96 12:37 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21392; Tue, 23 Jan 96 09:30:05 PST Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:30:05 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: students@lternet.edu Subject: Special Edition Tipsheet (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR January 23, 1996 For more information on these science news and feature story tips, please contact the public information officer at the end of each item at (703) 306-1070. Editor: Beth Gaston ***SPECIAL EDITION*** TWENTY-ONE DAY SHUTDOWN CAUSES CRUNCH AT NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION The NSF is digging out from its own blizzard of paperwork left by the unprecedented government shutdown. The NSF supports nonmedical science and engineering research and education through competitive grants to about 2,000 institutions nationwide. The furlough postponed dozens of panel meetings to review hundreds of proposals for research. Researchers nationwide could not consult with NSF staff regarding their proposal submissions. Technical support to state, urban and rural education reform projects funded by NSF was suspended, which may adversely impact these multi million-dollar efforts. Hundreds of science projects have been delayed or canceled, the budgets of researchers at universities nationwide have been disrupted -- affecting funding for graduate students and innovative pilot undergraduate courses across the country -- and the pace of science exploration has slowed at a time when the U.S. faces more overseas technology competition than ever before. This special issue of the tipsheet examines the effects across the agency. COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING The NSF Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering felt the crunch from the government shutdown. At least a dozen CISE panels, workshops and program review meetings had to be rescheduled for late January or early February due to the shutdown. Participation by NSF computer scientists and engineers was also reduced at conferences and joint agency meetings that took place during the furlough. Upcoming meetings will also be affected: because of the furlough, NSF staff were unable to mail out proposals for review, which will give panelists less time to prepare. Mail -- sure to contain a number of CISE proposals for funding -- is still backed up in the mailroom. The NSFNET program review and committee of visitors were both canceled and will be rescheduled, probably in February. Delays of up to six months in new renewal programs for the Networking Connections Program and recompetition for the International Connections award are expected. A new plan for NSF supercomputing support, Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure, was approved by the National Science Board Dec. 17, just before the second shutdown. This program is proceeding with a two-week slippage in submission deadlines, and the division of Advanced Scientific Computing is working to quickly schedule a series of meetings to inform potential grantees about the new program. [Beth Gaston] POLAR PROGRAMS The shutdown has hampered planning for a NSF-supported submarine cruise planned to explore the Arctic Ocean this fall. Unlike Antarctic research, soon to enter the quieter winter season, the main Arctic research season is just ahead. The pricetag for the ten or so research projects on the submarine cruise -- also supported by the Office of Naval Research -- will be about $1 million. Without knowing its budget, however, NSF's Office of Polar Programs cannot plan exactly how much money to commit for researchers who need to buy equipment, build instruments, and otherwise prepare for the September research cruise. The Arctic Ocean is the least explored of the world's oceans, and the studies on this cruise beneath the ice pack will provide information about climate change, ocean circulation and ice cover, biology, and the geological history of the Arctic basin. [Lynn Simarski] MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES More than 100 panelists were scheduled to meet at the NSF in early January to evaluate pre-proposals from 628 proposers for a major, $12-million, agency-wide initiative on optical science and engineering -- a meeting deferred by the shutdown. Led jointly by NSF's Directorate of Mathematical and Physical Sciences and the Directorate for Engineering, the panels were organized by program officers from six different research directorates and one office who made travel and lodging arrangements for the panelists and prepared proposal packages -- a major logistical effort that must be made once again for the evaluation meeting, which has been rescheduled for mid-February. [Lynn Simarski] SOCIAL, BEHAVIORAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCES In the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, at least four major meetings to advance international cooperation in science -- with scientists from Russia, Japan, Mexico and South America -- were postponed and must be rescheduled. In one case, the furlough upset an already tight schedule for NSF and other U.S. agencies to prepare for the Summit of the Americas meeting of science and engineering ministers from throughout the western hemisphere, scheduled for late March 1996. Panel meetings to review proposals for research in decision, risk and management science were delayed twice and finally canceled over the furlough. Payment of contracts to initiate research, such as a new National Consortium for Research on Violence, has been delayed. Annual studies and surveys have been delayed. Two economic surveys -- one tracking corporate expenditures for research and development, another on college graduates -are looking at delays of a month or more since these are based on census figures from the Bureau of the Census which was also closed. [George Chartier] ENGINEERING Among engineering programs, four of eleven on-site inspections of current and proposed research centers around the nation had to be rescheduled. One of these sites was ready to begin on the day of the first shut down in November, and industry sponsors for the center, already on campus and awaiting NSF engineers, had to return home. Funding for their visits came from industry and will have to be paid for again if they wish to attend the rescheduled site visits. For all the canceled visits the hardship fell on the site visitors, the Engineering Research Center teams and their industrial sponsors who had to shift schedules, repeat rehearsals for the visits, and cancel subcontractors and hotels providing services to the site visits. One final selection panel meeting had to be rescheduled from January to April, slowing down the process by three months. [George Chartier] -end- From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Jan 23 22:47:18 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09473; Tue, 23 Jan 96 22:47:17 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa18125; 23 Jan 96 22:47 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00473; Tue, 23 Jan 96 19:42:09 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01553; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:39:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:39:15 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: FYI #11 - Communicating with Congress (II) (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 11: January 23, 1996 Communicating With Congress - Meeting With a Member of Congress "Clearly, this is a time of great challenge for science and technology in America. But, I believe we can seize this time as one of opportunity to work together in ways we have never done before, to raise our voices, together, to send out a clear and coherent message. This is not the time to plead for biology vs. chemistry or astronomy vs. engineering, or even basic vs. applied research or technology. It's a time to speak out about the importance of the Federal investment in science and technology, in research and education, in universities, in national laboratories and other institutions -- and in the partnerships that have been formed with industry and other sectors that use the knowledge and technologies for the public good...." -- National Science Foundation Director Neal Lane, January 15, 1996 MEETING WITH A MEMBER OF CONGRESS: A personal visit with your Member of Congress can be very useful. Members and staff meet with constituents every day. Visiting with a Member provides a personal touch, an opportunity for questions, and immediate feedback. Consider inviting the Member to your laboratory, office, or special function. Some guidelines for an effective meeting are: Schedule your meeting at least three to four weeks in advance by calling the appointments scheduler. The U.S. Capitol switchboard number is 202-224-3121; operators will connect you with a specific office. In making your appointment, state who will be attending and the purpose of the visit. Be prepared to offer alternative dates. Consider meeting with the Member in his/her local office, where there is a more relaxed atmosphere and fewer distractions. Prepare your presentation as follows: Be informed about relevant legislation (you may contact fyi@aip.org for assistance.) Be ready to provide a brief, nontechnical explanation of the issue, avoiding jargon and abbreviations. If coming as a group, select a spokesperson and a common strategy. If appropriate, bring a visual aid. A few well-selected items may be useful, but resist the temptation to bring a stack of material. Contact AIP for physics-related hand-out material. Plan on about a 15-minute appointment. Arrive early and depart on time, thanking the Member for his/her consideration. Follow-up the appointment with a thank you letter briefly reiterating the purpose of your visit. Anticipate schedule changes, since a Member may be detained by committee or floor votes. In this case, a staff assistant will handle the appointment. These dedicated assistants are often the most knowledgeable about legislation, and can be very influential. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Jan 24 09:43:54 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11015; Wed, 24 Jan 96 09:43:52 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19656; 24 Jan 96 9:43 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02736; Wed, 24 Jan 96 06:40:59 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04604; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 07:39:10 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 07:39:09 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: FYI #12 - APS Letter re NSF (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 12: January 23, 1996 APS Letter on National Science Foundation; Shutdown Outlook Robert Schrieffer, President of The American Physical Society, sent the following letter to leaders in the House and Senate regarding the lack of an FY 1996 appropriation for the National Science Foundation: January 19, 1996 "The budget impasse is beginning to have a dramatic--and negative--effect on the nation's scientific research enterprise. One immediate threat is to research supported by the National Science Foundation. "The government shutdown and the absence of a 1996 appropriation has jeopardized NSF programs in many states and districts throughout the nation. By December 31, the NSF had been forced to cut off funding for 156 research grants. Another 300 grants will expire at the end of January. "The American Physical Society considers this a crisis situation for the National Science Foundation, our nation's scientific enterprise, and the long-term health of the American economy. As each day passes, the potential for damage increases. "For more than half a century, science has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. I urge you to continue this tradition and work with your colleagues in Congress and with the Administration to pass a full 1996 appropriation for NSF." Sincerely, Robert Schrieffer **** There is little to report about moves on Capitol Hill to continue short term funding beyond this Friday. Congressional Republicans are working on a continuing resolution to fund departments and agencies through March 15 for which an appropriations bill has not been signed. House Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston (R-LA) predicts that short term funding will maintain government functions "fundamentally at the same level" as now exists. Although this would vary by agency and function, in the case of NSF, the rate of funding would not be below that of last year. Under this proposed continuing resolution, between 12 and 20 as yet unspecified government programs would be terminated. ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Jan 30 21:32:03 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14798; Tue, 30 Jan 96 21:32:01 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab24268; 30 Jan 96 21:31 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16341; Tue, 30 Jan 96 18:25:11 PST Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 18:25:11 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: students@lternet.edu, lmerpi@lternet.edu Subject: 1995 Cross-Site Awards Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI, I have posted abstract of the 1995 NSF Cross-Site Collaboration Awards at gopher://lternet.washington.edu:70/11/AboutLTER/d-res_syn on the LTERnet gopher server. Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office From adub@lternet.edu Thu Feb 1 19:58:36 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07178; Thu, 1 Feb 96 19:58:23 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa29237; 1 Feb 96 19:57 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10720; Thu, 1 Feb 96 16:51:33 PST Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 16:51:33 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener X-Sender: adub@lternet.washington.edu To: konza , pi@lternet.edu, scollins@lternet.edu Subject: Konza: Air & Lodging info Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Current information can also be found on the Konza meeting info Web page: http://lternet.edu/meetings/konza.htm If you have not already done so, PLEASE CONFIRM YOUR ATTENDANCE WITH THE NETWORK OFFICE. FLIGHT INFO: Departing flights out of Manhattan KS are limited, so please make your airline reservations early. On Friday, April 26, there are two flights out on commuter planes with limited seating: 230pm and 445pm. So that everyone has a chance to get home at a reasonable hour, East Cost people are encouraged to take the earlier flight, and West Coast folks are encouraged to take the later one if possible. If you can't get a flight into or out of Manhattan, there are commercial shuttle buses between Manhattan and Kansas City Airport (allow 2 1/2 to 3 hours). The best person to help you sort through your options is the travel agent. If the LTER Network Office is paying your travel expenses, contact AMBASSADOR TRAVEL: 1-800-233-8263 or (206) 623-0484. SHUTTLES: 1) Travelers Express 800-747-2524 or (913) 539-2284 2) KCI Roadrunner Airport Shuttle Service 800-826-8294 or (913) 238-6161 (make reservations 48 hours in advance) LODGING: A block of rooms is being held at the Super Eight (200 Tuttle Creek Blvd. Manhattan, KS) Reserve early: there is a convention in town and rooms are scarce. PHONE THE HOTEL TO GUARANTEE YOUR RESERVATION WITH A CREDIT CARD BY APRIL 10: (913) 537-8468 or 1-800-800-8000. BE SURE TO SAY YOU ARE PART OF THE BLOCK RESERVED BY KSU DIVISION OF BIOLOGY. Doubles: $50.88 + tax. Singles: $41.88 + tax. The hotel has no restaurant, but there are several nearby. For LTER Network Office-paid travel, meal expenses will be reimbursed up to the maximum allowable for that area: $26/day ($6 breakfast, $8 lunch, $12 dinner). Alcoholic beverages and individual tips are not reimbursable. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrienne Whitener Phone: (206) 543-4853 LTER Network Office Fax: (206) 543-7295 Univ. of Washington E-mail: AWhitener@LTERnet.edu Box 352100 Seattle, WA 98195-2100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Feb 2 16:23:13 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11028; Fri, 2 Feb 96 16:22:58 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa02887; 2 Feb 96 16:21 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18339; Fri, 2 Feb 96 13:17:24 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA23807; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:15:15 -0700 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:15:15 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: NCDC Data on line Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Subject: NCDC Announcement NCDC Announces New On-Line Products and Services The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) announces the availability of three new on line services through its WWW site (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov): 1) Interactive Visualization of Global Daily Data: Located in the 'interactive visualization of climate data' area, this system previously provided graphical analysis and data plots for U.S. climate divisional data and National Weather Service summary of day data. This has now been expanded to include global summary of day data for approximately 8000 worldwide stations. (Additional stations will be added to the system as time and resources permit.) This global daily data was previously (and still is) available as ASCII data files for 1994 to present. Now, this new system provides for graphical displays of the most recent 18 months of data, with the latest month normally available 5-6 weeks after the end of the data month (e.g., Oct 95 accessible in early December). The 12 elements which can be graphed are: Daily means for temperature, dew point, sea level pressure, station pressure, visibility, and wind speed. Daily extremes for sustained wind speed, wind gust, and maximum/minimum temperature. Daily precipitation. Snow depth. The user selects a region of interest from a global map; then selects the country (or countries) needed; and then the desired station(s), element(s), and time period. The system allows for either GIF or Postscript output. For example, you can display: August 1995 mean daily temperature for Vostok, Antarctica. January 1995 mean daily wind speed and temperature for Mount Washington, New Hampshire. Chicago's daily mean dew points for June through August 1995. August 1995 daily rainfall for Baguio and Manila in the Philippines. February 1995 daily snow depth for Valdez, Alaska and Blue Canyon, California. July 1995 daily maximum temperatures for Alert and Eureka, Canada. November-December 1995 daily mean wind speed for London, England. 2) Images of Hurricanes and other Storms: Located in the 'on-line data access' area, this system includes multiple satellite images of all of this year's hurricanes, along with images of significant hurricanes of previous years (e.g., Gilbert, Andrew, Hugo)--over 160 images in all. Several other types of images are also included such as: The first GOES-9 IR and visible images Tornadic thunderstorms AVHRR 'close-ups' of numerous areas The March 1993 'storm of the century' 3) 1995-1996 Technical Reports on Weather Events, Etc: Located in the 'products, publications, and services' area, we have reports on: The Blizzard of '96 Billion Dollar Weather Disasters of 1980-1996 The California flooding of last winter Hurricane Opal Probabilities for a white Christmas The same page provides access to seven reports produced during 1993- 1994 covering events such as the March '93 blizzard, the 1993 Midwest flooding, the February '94 Southeast ice storm, and July '94 flooding in Georgia. The reports are available as ASCII text with separate GIF images, and as Wordperfect files. They include discussions of the events, climatic data tables, computer-analyzed maps of the affected areas, satellite images, and NEXRAD images. We encourage users to try these new products and systems, and to let us know if you encounter any problems. NCDC/Neal Lott nlott@ncdc.noaa.gov http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Feb 2 20:54:23 1996 Received: from uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AB11606; Fri, 2 Feb 96 20:54:21 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa08093; 2 Feb 96 19:48 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20059; Fri, 2 Feb 96 16:32:59 PST Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 16:32:59 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu, net@lternet.edu Cc: sCollins@nsf.gov, cDybas@nsf.gov Subject: Spring/Summer 1996 LTER Network News--Preliminary Topics List Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Dear PIs, students, Network Office staff and others: It's time to pull the 19th issue of the *LTER Network News* together. Below is a proposed topic list, including items I have collected or been informed about since last issue. Please let me know of any omissions or corrections. As usual, I will need to know of any LTER-supported site publications, any new and interesting site activities and/or recent results. In parenthesis I've noted the name of the person most likely to contribute material on the subject noted, either because I've already been in contact with him or her, or because that person is reportedly leading the activity. If you have not heard from me yet and you are identified as a contributor, please confirm with me and I'll provide more information on length and content. If you also have relevant graphics or photographs, let me know as soon as possible and I will try to allow room for them as I organize the layout. A couple of weeks prior to the copy deadline, I will send out a final topics list reflecting any changes. At that time I will also provide detailed electronic submission information. Thank you for your assistance! Stephanie Martin Editor, LTER Network News 206/543-6764 sMartin@LTERnet.edu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SPRING/SUMMER 1996 NETWORK NEWS TOPICS (Proposed) COPY DEADLINE--all text, photos, etc.--February 29, 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FEATURES: Hubbard Brook LTER (Fahey & others) Harvard Forest LTER (Foster & others) CROSS-SITE ACTIVITIES/COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH: LTER Committee reports: Climate (Greenland), DM (Brunt), Technology (Bowser), Graduate Students (Perkins/Fischer, Synthesis (Gosz) 1995 Cross-Site Collaboration Awards (abstracts/rec'd.) 1995 Graduate Student Cross-Site Travel Awards-abstracts (Floyd/Minnick) 1994 Graduate Student Cross-Site Projects-update (Perkins/Dail) LTER-Oxford publishing contract (Hayden or Martin) NATIONAL / INTERNATIONAL: NSF: Furlough Impacts and Funding Outlook (Collins) LMER All Scientists Meeting (Hobbie/Scanlon) International LTER Developments: Spain/Portugal/Morrocco (Gosz), Czech Republic (Gosz), Costa Rica (Franklin/Gosz) UNM-Santa Fe Institute BIO Research Training Grant (announcement exerpt) AND-Russia Interactions (Harmon/McKee) 14-Site LTER-NASA MODLAND Project (Cohen) Other agency interactions? PEOPLE: George Kling (ARC), Presidential Faculty Fellow (text & photo) Harvey Chinn departs (text & photo) Cindy Veen tribute (Hovencamp/Fahey; text & photo) Richard Boone switches sites (text & photo) New personnel or people who deserve kudos? NEW/ENHANCED NET CAPABILITIES: Web update: All-Site Bibliography and Personnel Databases in web format, web content additions & usage (Martin) ILTER Server established (Nottrott/Vande Castle) NIS Working Group, formation & progress report (Brunt) SITE NEWS: Brief items only. Photos welcome. (New projects, interesting results, student work, etc.) HFR data management and computer systems (Lent) KNZ High School Students Water Quality Study (Dodds/rec'd.) WORKSHOPS & CONFERENCES: Biodiversity workshop & publication (Waide) LTER-NASA standardization workshop (Cohen) LTER-LMER workshop (Magnuson/Hobbie) Soils workshop & publication (Robertson) SDSC large datasets workshop (Grossman/Moore) XROOTS workshop (Bledsoe) PUBLICATIONS (compiled by Martin): Recent site publications and LTER Network publicity (compiled by Martin) Network Office Publications: CWD Guidelines Other publications of particular interest to the LTER community? CALENDAR ITEMS (compiled by Martin): Please submit items, including date, location, contact name, phone and e-mail. Upcoming EC and CC meetings LTER Workshops: Other? From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Feb 3 12:49:39 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13501; Sat, 3 Feb 96 12:49:37 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05170; 3 Feb 96 12:49 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23375; Sat, 3 Feb 96 09:46:39 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03714; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 10:46:50 -0700 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 10:46:49 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF budget Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR 2. NSF: APPROPRIATORS ARE URGED TO PROVIDE FULL-YEAR FUNDING. In a letter to Bob Livingston (R-LA), the House Appropriations Committee chair, and Jerry Lewis (R-CA), the Subcommittee chair, members explained that scientists had alerted them to problems that put our scientific enterprise at risk (WN 26 Jan 96), at a time when the Japanese are increasing their research effort (WN 19 Jan 96). The letter was initiated by Vern Ehlers (R-MI), a Fellow of the APS. Sixty House members had signed with Ehlers by this morning. George Brown (D-CA), ranking minority member on the Science Committee, was among the signatories, but the Committee chair, Bob Walker (R-PA), has reportedly declined. Urgent! It would be a very good idea to check with your Representative's office to be certain he or she is among those signing the letter. From JMB@lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu Tue Feb 6 18:19:28 1996 Received: from uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AB27735; Tue, 6 Feb 96 18:18:28 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab28956; 6 Feb 96 17:52 EST Received: from mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (grunt.ksu.ksu.edu) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13260; Tue, 6 Feb 96 13:34:22 PST Received: from lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu (lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu [129.130.110.5]) by mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA06127 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 15:34:05 -0600 Received: from LTER-KONZA/MAIL by lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu (Mercury 1.13); Tue, 6 Feb 96 15:33:13 GMT+11 Received: from MAIL by LTER-KONZA (Mercury 1.13); Tue, 6 Feb 96 15:22:16 GMT+11 From: "John M. Briggs" Organization: KONZA-LTER To: pi@lternet.edu Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 15:22:10 CDT Subject: REU Program at KNZ in 1996 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Message-Id: <2A69D24E90@lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu> Priority: A Status: OR In the summer of 1996 Konza Prairie Research Natural Area (KPRNA) and the Division of Biology at Kansas State University will offer a Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program in grassland ecology. KPRNA is a 3,487 ha tallgrass research preserve and one of a network of 18 Long Term Ecological Research sites. The 10 week REU program will offer undergraduates an opportunity to complete a research project under the direction of a faculty mentor. Prospective REU students can view the research abstracts of 1995 REU students at http:www.climate.konza.ksu.edu/general/reu95.html. In addition to support for their research, students will be provided with a stipend, housing, tuition support for two one hour courses (one course in research ethics and one course in grassland ecology), and funds to allow them to travel to a national scientific meeting. Persons who would like a complete description of the REU program and application materials should contact Dr. Diane Post, Division of Biology, Ackert Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506-4901 (e-mail dpost@lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu). The deadline for receipt of completed application materials is 15 March, 1996. From scollins@nsf.gov Wed Feb 7 07:37:52 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19896; Wed, 7 Feb 96 07:37:50 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa23458; 7 Feb 96 7:37 EST Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19853; Wed, 7 Feb 96 04:35:23 PST Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA16861 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:37:22 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by xrelay.nsf.gov id AA823632343; Tue, 06 Feb 96 10:15:33 EST Date: Tue, 06 Feb 96 10:15:33 EST From: scollins@nsf.gov Message-Id: <9601068236.AA823632343@xrelay.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Thanks Status: OR Hi, gang. I just wanted to thank those of you who contacted members of congress on behalf of NSF regarding the budget situation. We appreciate your time and effort on this issue. Perhaps this can serve as an important lesson that we need to communicate regularly with members of congress, in order to keep them more informed about the role of research, in general, and NSF, in particular, in the US scientific enterprise. Thanks again for taking the time to write letters. Scott From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Feb 9 16:16:02 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02662; Fri, 9 Feb 96 16:15:54 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa16640; 9 Feb 96 16:14 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15105; Fri, 9 Feb 96 13:06:57 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06995; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 14:07:04 -0700 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 14:07:04 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: CHICAGO TRIBUNE STORY (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 96 11:11:15 EST From: scollins@nsf.gov To: jgosz@lternet.edu Subject: CHICAGO TRIBUNE STORY Here's an interesting little problem of the future..... ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ ************************************************* In case you missed it, here is the Chicago Tribune story (previously emailed to SMIG) mentioned in this morning's SMIG meeting. OLPA will be circulating to you a hard copy of this article, the press statement released by the University of Rhode Island in response to this piece, and the "correction" the Tribune ran on 2/4. Julia Chicago Tribune (1-28-96) >> >>"Research grants actually add to tuition cost, study claims" >> >>By Ron Grossman and Charles Leroux >>Tribune Staff Writers >> >>KINGSTON, R.I.--For decades, universities have been happy to accept federal >>research money, assuming that it helped support the sciences' poor cousins, >>the liberal arts. >> >>Now an innovative study by the University of Rhode Island shows that >>conventional wisdom may be wrong. Chasing federal funds is a losing game, the >>study demonstrates. >> >>A Tribune analysis of the university's numbers indicates it costs more to get >>grants and administer research projects than the grants pay, creating a >>deficit passed on to students in the form of tuition increases. >> >>Because universities all operate in basically the same fashion, the >>implications of Rhode Island's study apply to campuses across the nation. >> >>Chief among these implications: America's students have been assessed a kind >>of hidden tax quietly folded into their tuition bills. >> >>In addition to the cost of their educations, undergraduates pay the salaries >>of campus-based researchers, many of whom the undergraduates never see in >>classrooms. >> >>Nationally, the price of going to college has risen at a rate exceeding even >>the steep rise in the nation's medical bills. Over the last 15 years, the >>cost of college has skyrocketed 232 percent. To keep one student for one year >>in a public university now eats up one-third of an average family's annual >>income. >> >>Reacting to the high cost of tuition, about a half-dozen smaller schools have >>announced tuition cuts. But in most cases the cuts will make little >>difference to the students because of cuts in student aid. Undergraduates at >>the nation's 3,500 institutions of higher learning will pay, on average, 6 >>percent more this year than last, about twice the rate of inflation, >>according to the College Board. >> >>Zelda Gamson, director of the New England Resource Center for Higher >>Education said Rhode Island's study raises ``basic philosophical questions'' >>about the equity of funding scientific research with tuition money. >> >>``The quest for new knowledge is a benefit to all society,'' she said. ``The >>study raises the issue of whether the federal government shouldn't pick up >>the entire bill for such research rather than leaving some of the bill to >>students.'' >> >>Without the losses research incurs, Rhode Island, in theory, could have cut >>its $4,404 tuition almost in half. >> >>In their eagerness for federal dollars, universities have had little >>incentive to look closely at the effect of research funds on the cost and >>quality of the education they offer. Yet there is evidence that Rhode >>Island's experience is repeated across the nation. >> >>The University of Michigan is auditing its finances, and preliminary findings >>also seem to show that the tuition checks of its students help bail out >>research programs that run in the red. >> >>``As a first pass, our study showed that undergraduates are subsidizing >>everybody else in the university,'' said Marilyn Knepp, director of academic >>planning and analysis. ``That was a surprise, a real eye opener.'' >> >>It shouldn't have been. Twenty-five years ago, Michigan professor of >>economics Tom Weisskopf examined tuition inflation and the distribution of >>the resulting revenue within the university over a nine-year period. >> >>``The rise in student fees,'' Weisskopf concluded in a published study ``has >>not been matched by any commensurate rise in expenditures on instruction or >>on student service supportive activities.'' >> >>More than a decade of tuition increases prompted 22 members of Congress to >>request a review of tuition inflation from the General Accounting Office, >>Congress' investigative arm. >> >>GAO investigators might well look at Rhode Island's audit. It shows, for >>example, that oceanography, the subject area for which this coastal state >>school is best known, took in $20 million in grants last year yet wound up >>with a $3 million deficit. Civil engineering received $2.5 million in grants >>but ended the year $300,000 in the red. >> >>``Even the best programs in science don't pay their own way,'' Rhode Island's >>President Robert L. Carothers acknowledged. ``There's no doubt that that's a >>major inflationary pressure on college tuitions.'' >> >>Rhode Island funded the deficits produced by research programs out of the >>university's general revenues--chief among them the tuition checks of its >>10,531 undergraduates. >> >>Those undergraduates, once the cost of their education has been subtracted >>from their tuition and the state's supplement, produced a surplus of about >>$20 million, according to Alvin Swonger, the faculty member who directed the >>university's study. The money went to bail out Rhode Island's losses from >>research, also about $20 million. >> >>That transfer of funds cost each undergraduate $1,900. >> >>Universities used to exist for the undergraduates' benefit, taking teaching >>as their primary mission. But after the success of the Manhattan atomic bomb >>project--conducted largely at the University of Chicago during World War >>II--the federal government decided to locate future scientific research on >>campuses. That decision produced notable breakthroughs ranging from the >>transistor to the kidney dialysis machine. >> >>But, as scientists and social-science professors started to focus on research, >>they handed over their teaching responsibilities to graduate students and >>part-time instructors. Eventually, professors in disciplines and institutions >>that don't do much research were able to pressure their administrations for >>reduced teaching loads as well. Now, after decades of tuition inflation, >>low-paid adjuncts account for 40 percent of all college teachers. >> >>``Higher education is the only thing people are willing to pay more for less >>of,'' Carothers said. >> >>Without federal grant monies, universities have claimed, they wouldn't be >>able to offer courses in the humanities, where there is virtually no external >>funding. >> >>Mort Briggs, chairman of Rhode Island's history department, initially was >>leery of the university's self-study. >> >>``We were always told we were the money losers,'' Briggs said. ``But, it >>turns out that history earned the university $174,000 last year. Pharmacy, >>meanwhile, lost big. If you used an industrial model, you'd sell it off, >>quick.'' >> >>Research-oriented departments need the support of tuition money because of a >>mechanism built into the system of financing science. >> >>Margaret Leinen, Rhode Island's dean of oceanography, explained that granting >>agencies reimburse universities for the material costs of research, but not >>the salaries of researchers. >> >>``The equation always was,'' Leinen said, ``the federal government would put >>up the dollars and the universities would put up the people--and pay them.'' >> >>The American Council on Education warned, as early as 1969, that, when it >>comes to research, the writing on the wall was in red ink. >> >>``Frequently a research grant does not include an allocation for any portion >>of the salary of the distinguished professor who is to be the principal >>investigator,'' the ACE's report noted. ``That another professor or >>instructor must be hired to take over his teaching duties is often ignored in >>the accounting of the total costs. This practice could well become a pattern >>of prospering into bankruptcy.'' >> >>That prophecy has been virtually fulfilled by Rhode Island's psychology >>department. Its undergraduate program--whose courses are taught to large >>lecture halls of students--netted the university $1.25 million. >> >>Its research-oriented graduate program, with far fewer students, lost $1.12 >>million, even though the department received $6.8 million in external grants >>last year. >> >>Research also requires the support of tuition monies because of a built-in >>expense called, in academic jargon, ``indirect overhead.'' To do research, a >>university has to maintain laboratories and specialized libraries; it has to >>assign administrators to help chase grants and monitor research projects. >> >>``Look out that window,'' Leinen said. ``I'd bet that about a fourth of our >>campus wasn't built 20 years ago. Yet our student body is about the same >>size. All those new buildings are to support our research programs.'' >> >>The government pays some fraction of the indirect costs of doing research, >>but never 100 percent. A 1989 study by the University of Michigan concluded >>that ``about 25 percent of the indirect costs incurred in UM's research >>program is not recovered.'' That unrecovered cost at Michigan runs about $25 >>million annually, according to George Schlecht, Michigan's director of >>financial analysis and cost reimbursement. >> >>Graphed over time, the national rise in tuitions closely follows the increase >>in federal research grants. Clearly, a significant fraction of the cost of >>doing science has been passed on to students and parents as a surcharge >>creating ever >> >>Rep. Dick Zimmer (R-N.J.), one of those who requested the GAO investigation, >>noted, ``Virtually every sector of the economy has learned to control its >>costs except higher education.'' Unless universities soon learn this lesson, >>Zimmer said, ``college will be out of reach for all but the wealthiest >>Americans.'' >> >>Copyright Chicago Tribune (c) 1996 > > > > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Feb 17 22:33:26 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04580; Sat, 17 Feb 96 22:33:19 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa25264; 17 Feb 96 22:33 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15710; Sat, 17 Feb 96 19:28:45 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05062; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 20:26:59 -0700 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 20:26:58 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: FYI #22 - Walker Commentary (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Chairman Walker on "Scientists as Advocates in the Policy Process" Congress returns to Washington later this month to wrap-up unfinished FY 1996 appropriations legislation and start work on the FY 1997 budget (see FYI #21.) With continued emphasis on cutting federal spending, this promises to be another important year for the science community. Central to a favorable funding outcome is, many believe, the active participation of the science community in communicating with Congress. House Science Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) discusses below the role scientists should play in the policy process. The following are excerpts from an editorial by Congressman Robert S. Walker which appeared in its entirety in the December 1995 issue of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology newsletter. Our thanks to FASEB for permission to share this article with FYI readers. ***** Ever since the dramatic growth in science funding following World War II helped make America the world's technological leader, basic research programs have received strong bipartisan support in Congress, from development of the space program to the rapidly expanding biotechnology field.... As we head into 1996, I expect this traditional bipartisan support for research to remain solid, but in times of budget constraint, scientists can best insure that crucial projects continue to receive priority in the legislative process by actively uniting and promoting science issues with their congressional representatives and the general public. Indeed, it is crucial that scientists proceed to foster basic research issues at all levels of government and society. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of touring some of our country's, and the world's, most valuable centers for engineering and high-energy physics. Along with other members of the Science Committee, I visited university and government-sponsored research labs throughout the West. During each visit, Committee members were able to examine first-hand the productive spin-offs and potential advances provided by basic researchers. What do these visits have to do with biomedical research? They are a prime example of the involvement scientists around the nation, in every discipline, need to pursue with their elected representatives now and in the future. Now that Congress has vigorously committed itself to a balanced budget, science funding, which accounts for one-seventh of discretionary spending, is thrown into competition with a number of other important domestic programs.... Scientists can positively influence the policy process by clearly and publicly enunciating the role and potential of their research so that the lay person, who may not be intimately familiar with basic research objectives, feels comfortable in knowing that his tax money is well-spent. Public seminars, school field-trips, and op-ed pieces can create widespread enthusiasm for science programs. Furthermore, Congressional members will argue more effectively for continued research funding with their colleagues when they can persuasively defend the programs on both a budgetary and scientific basis, a task directly linked to their interactions with researchers. How can scientists persuade reluctant representatives of the importance of basic research? One of the most effective means of accomplishing this is by inviting representatives to address a gathering of researchers, or by providing hands-on tours of research facilities. Making science real for these members is the true key to legislative success. Finally, stress the economic impact of basic science research. Universities, for example, employ a significant number of personnel who have a direct stake in continued support for basic research. Technological spin-offs from basic science are an invaluable underpinning of our growing economy. New knowledge is the core of our economic future. Scientists must work together to foster support for research in and out of their fields of specialty. Heading into 1996, I'm looking forward to continued American dominance in basic research. Biomedical researchers, along with their counterparts in particle physics, oceanography, materials science, and a host of other traditionally disparate fields, need to pool their common resources and objectives to insure legislative support and public enthusiasm for basic science. Only by fostering unity in the legislative process will scientists and policy makers realize their goals for the 21st century advances. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Feb 17 22:33:38 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04584; Sat, 17 Feb 96 22:33:33 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa25259; 17 Feb 96 22:33 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15719; Sat, 17 Feb 96 19:29:59 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05100; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 20:28:47 -0700 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 20:28:47 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: FYI #21 - NSF, NASA, NIST Update (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Unfinished Business: Outlook on FY 96 Appropriations for NSF, NASA, NIST Temporary funding expires in one month for the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. There seems to be sentiment that before then, Congress and the Clinton Administration may agree on a legislative mechanism to avoid a repeat of previous government shutdowns. Earlier this week, House Appropriations Chairman Robert Livingston (R-LA) said that he was pushing a plan to provide funding for the remainder of this fiscal year in one comprehensive bill. Under this scenario, unsigned appropriations bills would be rolled into one package. While nothing is ever certain, this legislation is being scheduled for the week of March 4. This monumental log jam may be breaking-up for several reasons. After months of going back-and-forth, neither the Republican-controlled Congress nor the Clinton Administration can get a decisive win. The ultimate weapon - closure of the federal government - was repeatedly used with little effect. While the president does not have enough votes to get the four unsigned appropriations bills passed to his liking, Republicans in Congress do not have enough votes to override his vetoes. Also coming into play are two different calendars -- for fiscal year 1996, and calendar year 1996. When temporary funding expires on March 15, FY 1996 will be almost half over. Simply put, it is time to get stable funding passed for agencies like NSF, NASA, and NIST. Congress also has to start work on the FY 1997 budget. The Administration's inability to submit a detailed budget request earlier this month - due to the lack of a complete FY 1996 budget as a base - now confronts Congress as it starts work on the new budget. Congress should pass FY 1997 appropriations bills by October 1, a target they will be reluctant to miss since Members will be anxious to get home for the fall election. October 1 is not as distant as it seems: between mid-March and the scheduled October 4 adjournment are 90 legislative days when both chambers will be in session. Cut this to 60 days if Members take Mondays and Fridays off, as is the custom. Last year's proposals to abolish the Departments of Commerce and Energy through the appropriations process were unsuccessful, and Livingston is now saying that future dismantlement moves will have to be accomplished through authorization bills. That would seem to decrease the possibility that dismantlement legislation will be enacted this year, as any bill would have to be signed by the President (since there are not enough votes to override his veto.) There is still great uncertainty about wrapping up FY 1996 appropriations, since on many policy issues the Administration and Congress are far apart. But with the recognition, on both sides, that these issues are unlikely to be resolved soon, it appears that the FY 1996 appropriations process may be coming to an end. Congress starts work on FY 1997 appropriations in two weeks, with less nondefense discretionary money available for next year than it had for FY 1996. ############### Richard M. Jones From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Feb 17 22:46:58 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04595; Sat, 17 Feb 96 22:46:51 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa29098; 17 Feb 96 22:46 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15740; Sat, 17 Feb 96 19:32:35 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05129; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 20:30:58 -0700 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 20:30:57 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: FYI #23 - Lane Speech (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NSF Director Lane Extols Role of "Civic Scientist" During the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, NSF Director Neal Lane spoke to the science community about its role in explaining the importance of science. Excerpts from his February 9 remarks, entitled "Science and the American Dream: Healthy or History?" are quoted below. The "//" indicates that selections from separate paragraphs have been combined in the interests of space. ***** "I particularly appreciate this chance to speak with you because I believe that we need to have a dialogue about the future of science in America and the critical role of the science community in determining that future." "Substantial funding and major mobilization of science toward national goals dates primarily from World War II.// What a difference five decades can make.... The ballooning of the budget deficit in the 1980s along with the economic drain from interest on the federal debt have energized the electorate to demand greater accountability of all government investment, including science and technology.// In this new environment, leadership from you, the science community, requires a much more public and civic persona. You are needed more than ever to be visible and vocal in your communities. This requires your presence, as scientists, outside the walls of your laboratories and the gates of your universities to a much greater extent than in the past." "Now...science can only be funded if the electorate and their representatives remain convinced of its value and contribution. These understandings and necessary explanations are not well suited to crash efforts in times of a budget crisis. They need to be routine parts of a community discourse on the goals and values of various investments that the national could or should make. Only then will science and technology's fundamental contribution be inherently valued in today's climate of accountability. Without this understanding among citizens and policy makers, science and the American dream may only be a memory from the past and not a part of our future. "In the early years, science helped protect us from our enemies. But today when it comes to science, the American people could be their own worst enemy.... There is very limited public understanding of science and, more important, how science and technology contribute to our lives, our aspirations, and our national goals. Perhaps the public's lack of understanding says more about us than about them.// I believe that the new leadership needed from the research community is to carry our understanding of science and its value into the life of our own communities through our teachings, to be sure, but in many other ways as well.// I would argue that scientists are the only genuinely credible people to deliver the message. I understand that some of you may have neither the desire nor will to do so, but I have little doubt that if you do, the experience will be fulfilling and the results successful." "The public likes science, but do scientists like the public? I think we need to ask this question of ourselves as a community. We may then better comprehend the discrepancy between public interest and public understanding." "The exercise to balance the budget in seven years will be a test of national restraint and endurance under difficult circumstances -- with or without cutting federal research and development. But cutting the very components that are growth creating and enhancing at such a time seems counterproductive.// When we dramatically reduce science, technology, and education, we are shaking the very underpinning of our societal structure." "Damage or destruction to any part of this intricate system could eventually undermine the whole structure. It is the system in all of its complexity and uniqueness that generates knowledge and national wealth far greater than the sum of its parts.// I believe the American people and many of their elected representatives do not understand this. It is up to us to convey that concept, that understanding, and its value to America's progress and the American Dream." "What we need, I think, is the science community's leadership to educate the nation about the value of science and technology to our national well-being. This may seem an impossible task!// I grant you that these things happen slowly and imperceptibly at the grassroots. They are not about staged visits to Washington representatives but rather about the collective influence of singular forays into local community life." "An important part of our work as scientists is to present our findings in scientific papers for journals and conferences. At the other extreme, however, there are opportunities for talks at community meetings like the Kiwanis Club and the League of Women Voters (I share your angst because I have a pending date with the Arlington Rotary Club.)// I will argue that such meetings as these are increasingly important, even though I'm afraid they don't contribute significantly to tenure or other professional advancement, at least not yet. "Two weeks ago, I gave a speech in Texas in which I spoke of the perception in Congress of the science community's stony silence in the wake of major cuts, actual and projected, in R&D. This relative silence was taken as a negative sign for lawmakers who were fighting to hold the line against deeper cuts in science. It provided ammunition for those policymakers intent on offering up `science funding' for budget-balancing. "I am speaking of the kind of leadership that only this community -- which I am privileged to know so well -- can deliver.// We have a civic role to play for the nation. Science and technology are integral to all our lives as citizens, perhaps so integral that we often take them for granted like sunlight or rain. However, nobody understands better than we who are scientists what it takes to build a strong science and technology presence." "In closing, I want to remind you that as scientists, you know from experience that being accountable and being creative and visionary are not mutually exclusive.// I am not unaware of your reluctance and perhaps even feelings of awkwardness to step forward in a new and uncharacteristic pose -- the civic scientist.// I would like to challenge all of us, myself included, to find our own personal path to bring this message to our citizenry." ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Feb 22 14:15:41 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05274; Thu, 22 Feb 96 14:15:38 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa19168; 22 Feb 96 14:15 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02489; Thu, 22 Feb 96 11:06:21 PST Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:06:20 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: lmerpi@lternet.edu, cBledsoe@lternet.edu Subject: NSF Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI, due to the recent government shutdown, the deadline dates for receipt of preproposals for NSF's Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure program has been delayed until April 15, 1996. Since the program will primarily support academic research, it is expected that proposals will come from, and the partnership's cooperative agreement will be with, a U.S. academic institution. However, successful proposals must involve multiple partners who can be, but are not limited to universities, including research groups within universities; NSF-funded Centers and facilities, research and education consortia, organizations and groups, regional and state-supported high-performance computing centers, private sector organizations, and domestic government-sponsored laboratories. Details of the program solicitation and other program information is available online at URL http://www.cise.nsf.gov/cise/ASC/ or can be found on the NSF Science & Technology Information System under "Publications" (document number NSF 96-31). If you are unable to access this information, please call the Division of Advanced Scientific Computing at 703/306-1963. (I received a one-page description from which I excerpted the above information. If you would like me to fax it to you, please send a reply including your fax number) Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Feb 24 12:41:55 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12735; Sat, 24 Feb 96 12:41:53 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa25788; 24 Feb 96 12:41 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22539; Sat, 24 Feb 96 09:37:48 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA23097; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 10:38:09 -0700 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 10:38:08 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #27 - House Science Roster #1 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR House Science Subcommittees on Space, Technology The Science Committee is the authorizing committee on the House side for most of the federal government's civilian science and technology policies and programs, particularly those related to physics. Its counterpart in the Senate is the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space (see FYI #27.) Congress deals primarily with two types of bills, authorization and appropriations. Authorizing legislation gives a federal department or agency permission to spend money and sets policy direction; appropriations provide the actual money. In theory, major agencies and programs should be authorized before having funds appropriated for them, but in reality, many programs receive funding that have not been authorized. Agencies under the House Science Committee's jurisdiction in the 104th Congress include NSF, NASA, NIST, and the Department of Energy's non-military R&D programs. The Chairman of the House Science Committee is Robert Walker (R-PA). Last year Walker attempted to authorize a number of science programs in a single bill, H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act. The bill passed the House but no action was taken on it in the Senate. This year's Science Committee schedule may be less ambitious, as Walker has announced his intention to retire at the end of this term (see FYI #176, 1995.) The rosters of the Subcommittees on Space and Aeronautics, and on Technology, are listed below. FYI #26 will provide the rosters of the Subcommittees on Basic Research, and on Energy and Environment. The jurisdictional information is taken from the Science Committee's "Committee Rules for the 104th Congress," approved January 5, 1995. HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE 2320 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-6371 +Robert Walker (PA), Chair George Brown (CA), Ranking Both are ex-officio members of each subcommittee. SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS 2320 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-7858 Jurisdiction: "Legislative jurisdiction and general and special oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to astronautical and aeronautical research and development including: national space policy, including access to space; sub-orbital access and applications; National Aeronautics and Space Administration and its contractor and government-operated laboratories; space commercialization including the commercial space activities relating to the Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce; exploration and use of outer space; international space cooperation; National Space Council; space applications, space communications and related matters; and earth remote sensing policy." Republicans: Democrats: Jim Sensenbrenner (WI), Chair Ralph Hall (TX), Ranking Ken Calvert (CA) James Traficant (OH) *Dave Weldon (FL) Tim Roemer (IN) *Steve Stockman (TX) Bud Cramer (AL) *Andrea Seastrand (CA) James Barcia (MI) *Todd Tiahrt (KS) Jane Harman (CA) *Van Hilleary (TN) *Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) Dana Rohrabacher (CA) Alcee Hastings (FL) *Matt Salmon (AZ) *Mike Ward (KY) *Tom Davis (VA) *Bill Luther (MN) *Steve Largent (OK) *Mark Foley (FL) (1 vacancy) SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY 2319 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-8844 Jurisdiction: "Legislative jurisdiction and general and special oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to competitiveness including: standards and standardization of measurement; the National Institute of Standards and Technology; the National Technical Information Service; competitiveness, including small business competitiveness; tax, antitrust, regulatory and other legal and governmental policies as they relate to technological development and commercialization; technology transfer; patent and intellectual property policy; international technology trade; research, development, and demonstration activities of the Department of Transportation; civil aviation research, development, and demonstration; research, development, and demonstration programs of the Federal Aviation Administration; surface and water transportation research, development, and demonstration programs; materials research, development, and demonstration and policy; and biotechnology policy." Republicans: Democrats: Constance Morella (MD), Chair John Tanner (TN), Ranking *Sue Myrick (NC) Paul McHale (PA) Ken Calvert (CA) Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX) *Gil Gutknecht (MN) *Karen McCarthy (MO) *Andrea Seastrand (CA) *Zoe Lofgren (CA) *Todd Tiahrt (KS) *Barbara Cubin (WY) +Retiring at end of term. *Freshman Member. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Feb 24 12:42:40 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA12741; Sat, 24 Feb 96 12:42:38 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa25920; 24 Feb 96 12:42 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22533; Sat, 24 Feb 96 09:36:34 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA23084; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 10:36:55 -0700 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 10:36:55 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #28 - House Science Roster #2 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR House Science Subcommittees on Basic Research, Energy & Environment The Science Committee is the authorizing committee on the House side for most of the federal government's civilian science and technology policies and programs, particularly those relating to physics. Its counterpart in the Senate is the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space (see FYI #27.) Congress deals primarily with two types of bills, authorization and appropriations. Authorizing legislation gives a federal department or agency permission to spend money and sets policy direction; appropriations provide the actual money. In theory, major agencies and programs should be authorized before having funds appropriated for them, but in reality, many programs receive funding that have not been authorized. The jurisdictional information for the subcommittees is taken from the Science Committee's "Committee Rules for the 104th Congress," approved January 5, 1995. See FYI #25 for the rosters of the other two House Science subcommittees. SUBCOMMITTEE ON BASIC RESEARCH B-374 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-9662 Jurisdiction: "Legislative jurisdiction and general and special oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to science policy including: Office of Science and Technology Policy; all scientific research, and scientific and engineering resources (including human resources), math, science, and engineering education; intergovernmental mechanisms for research, development, and demonstration and cross-cutting programs; international scientific cooperation; National Science Foundation; university research policy, including infrastructure, overhead and partnerships; science scholarships; government-owned, contractor-operated non-military laboratories; computer, communications, and information science; earthquake and fire research programs; research and development relating to health, biomedical, and nutritional programs; to the extent appropriate, agricultural, geological, biological and life sciences research; and the Office of Technology Assessment [which no longer exists.]" Republicans: Democrats: Steven Schiff (NM), Chair Alcee Hastings (FL) Sherwood Boehlert (NY) *Lynn Rivers (MI) Joe Barton (TX) *Lloyd Doggett (TX) Bill Baker (CA) *Bill Luther (MN) Vern Ehlers (MI) John Olver (MA) *Gil Gutknecht (MN) *Zoe Lofgren (CA) Constance Morella (MD) *Mike Doyle (PA) Curt Weldon (PA) *Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) Roscoe Bartlett (MD) (3 vacancies) *Zach Wamp (TN) (no ranking minority member *Dave Weldon (FL) identified) *Lindsey Graham (SC) *Van Hilleary (TN) *Sue Myrick (NC) SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT B-374 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515, 202-225-9662 Jurisdiction: "Legislative jurisdiction and general and special oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to energy and environmental research, development, and demonstration including: Department of Energy research, development, and demonstration programs; federally owned and operated nonmilitary energy laboratories; energy supply research and development activities; nuclear and other advanced energy technologies; general science and research activities; uranium supply, enrichment, and waste management activities as appropriate; fossil energy research and development; clean coal technology; energy conservation research and development; science and risk assessment activities of the Federal Government; Environmental Protection Agency research and development programs; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including all activities related to weather, weather services, climate, and the atmosphere, and marine, fisheries, and oceanic research." Republicans: Democrats: Dana Rohrabacher (CA), Chair David Minge (MN) Harris Fawell (IL) John Olver (MA) Curt Weldon (PA) *Mike Ward (KY) Roscoe Bartlett (MD) *Mike Doyle (PA) *Zach Wamp (TN) Tim Roemer (IN) *Lindsey Graham (SC) Bud Cramer (AL) *Matt Salmon (AZ) James Barcia (MI) *Tom Davis (VA) Paul McHale (PA) *Steve Largent (OK) Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX) *Barbara Cubin (WY) *Lynn Rivers (MI) *Mark Foley (FL) *Karen McCarthy (MO) Steven Schiff (NM) (1 vacancy) Bill Baker (CA) (no ranking minority member Vern Ehlers (MI) identified) *Steve Stockman (TX) +Retiring at end of term. *Freshman Member. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Feb 26 10:03:58 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17980; Mon, 26 Feb 96 10:03:55 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa13761; 26 Feb 96 10:02 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07725; Mon, 26 Feb 96 06:56:40 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06191; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 07:57:01 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 07:57:00 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, dcoffin@lternet.edu Subject: TECO announcement Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORpf NSF/DOE/NASA/USDA JOINT PROGRAM ON TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY AND GLOBAL CHANGE ______________________________ Program Announcement DIRECTORATE FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES SUBMISSION DEADLINE: April 26, 1996 NSF/DOE/NASA/USDA JOINT PROGRAM ON TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY AND GLOBAL CHANGE INTRODUCTION In recent decades extensive efforts have been made to characterize and monitor the distribution and state of terrestrial ecosystems. Various global-scale environmental changes that are known or have the potential to affect terrestrial ecosystems have either already been documented (e.g., increasing atmospheric CO2, decreasing stratospheric ozone, land cover/land use change) or are predicted to occur (e.g., increased temperature, altered precipitation patterns, incidence of severe storms). Presently, what is lacking is an understanding of the potential combined effects of such changes on terrestrial ecosystems, particularly the effects of multiple and interacting global- scale changes (e.g., temperature, moisture, CO2, nutrients) on essential ecosystem components, functions, and/or processes. Key uncertainties are how ecosystems will react to change, and how such changes may influence global phenomena. It is unclear from existing information how the essential functions of species or ecosystems are being or will be affected by global environmental changes in the future, on scales from the individual cell to an individual organisms to populations to communities to ecosystems to landscapes and subcontinental regions. Without the ability to make such projections, implications for the sustainability of ecosystems as a support system for humans remain uncertain. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION In concert with the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and with the intent of enhancing interagency collaboration, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) , the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) seek to augment terrestrial ecological research with this special competition. This activity extends the research begun as a result of the first Terrestrial Ecology and Global Change (TECO) competition during FY95, current USGCRP activities in NSF on Ecological Rates of Change (EROC), Water, Energy, Atmosphere, Vegetation and Earth (WEAVE), Land Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) and Ecological Diversity (ED); in DOE on Programs on Ecosystem Research (PER), Terrestrial Carbon Processes (TCP), and research funded through the National Institute for Global Environmental Change (NIGEC); in NASA on the programs in Terrestrial Ecology and Boreal Ecosystem- Atmosphere Study (BOREAS) follow-on research; in USDA on programs in Forest/Range/Crop/Aquatic Ecosystems, Soils and Soil Biology, and on Plant Responses to the Environment (PRE). This competition will allow more comprehensive research on: ecosystem responses to combined effects of elevated CO2, temperature, water, and nutrients; obtaining an understanding of the combined effects of global forcing and landscape-scale processes on the future structure and distribution of ecosystems; potential proximal and evolutionary effects of global land-use changes on biodiversity of managed and unmanaged ecosystems; and the reciprocal influence of ecological processes on atmosphere and climate. The goal for this research is to improve understanding of how species, ecological characteristics and processes, and ecosystems are affected by global change at proximal and evolutionary time scales, and to enhance capabilities to predict consequences of multiple influences (e.g., concurrent changes in climate and atmospheric composition). The research also will increase the capability for extending experimentally-derived information obtained at smaller geographical scales (e.g., plot-size, stand-level, patch- size) and shorter time frames (e.g., growing seasons) to landscape and larger scales (e.g., regions, river basins) at longer temporal intervals (e.g., decades, centuries). To achieve this scientific understanding, innovative field experiments are needed to address interactions of ecological processes and combinations of effects related to global change, and to relate observed effects to causative factors. Also, to improve predictability, new modeling efforts will be needed for extrapolating information to other systems and across multiple scales that will contribute to the development of regional and subcontinental models. Agencies involved in this interagency announcement encourage multidisciplinary proposals involving companion experimental, manipulative and modeling efforts to provide critically needed data and understanding for improved predictions of global change phenomena in the following, equally important areas: (1) Carbon, CO2, and Other Trace Gases Related to Global Change The combined results of process, observation, and global modeling studies strongly suggest that terrestrial ecosystems must be taking up and storing significant amounts of carbon each year, yet we do not know where it is going, how long this might continue, and whether this storage will be permanent or only temporary. Improved databases, experiments and process models are needed: * To understand complex interactions that control exchange of CO2 and other trace gases between the biosphere and the atmosphere for representative terrestrial ecosystems; * To develop databases for the use, intercomparison, and testing of models of terrestrial vegetation and productivity, including data to quantify carbon content of terrestrial ecosystems and estimate how sources and sinks of carbon are changing; * To measure continental atmospheric CO2, carbon isotopes, and oxygen to better quantify processes within terrestrial carbon cycles. (2) Consequences of Global Change on Ecosystems It is hypothesized that ecosystems are changing or will change in response to climate changes of the past century and predicted future changes due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Linking these changes to climate presents unprecedented challenges because many other types of change are occurring simultaneously. There is a need to relate observed changes to likely causes using experimental approaches that examine phenomena at multiple scales and to incorporate the influence of ongoing evolutionary changes through time. Also, the research needs to provide the quantitative information for models that generalize from selected study sites to broader areas at local, regional and global levels at multiple temporal scales. The focus of research on consequences should be on improving the predictive understanding of how the structure and function of terrestrial ecosystems will respond to global change, including land use, climatic, and atmospheric changes. The research should improve the scientific basis for assessing the vulnerability of different ecosystems to global changes, including the potential beneficial and adverse effects of such changes on ecosystem components and processes of utilitarian and/or intrinsic value to humans. This capability should also include projecting potential ecological effects of future environments that many ecological communities may not yet have experienced, and the potential role of natural selection in driving these changes. Experimental and modeling research is encouraged: * To understand and predict how ecosystem processes (e.g., net primary production, respiration, net ecosystem productivity) are affected by combinations of altered atmospheric CO2 and other trace gas concentrations, different climate conditions, changing resource constraints (e.g.,nutrients, water and light), and changing land- use patterns (e.g., urban/suburban sprawl, conversion of forest to other uses, restoring wetlands); * To identify and quantify the mechanism(s) or process(es) controlling observed responses to altered climatic and atmospheric conditions, and to understand the potential for which the controlling mechanism(s) or process(es) might undergo natural selection in evolutionary time and the consequences of evolutionary change to ecosystem function; * To investigate trends, patterns, and relationships among vegetation, climate, and land use to document and understand the interaction between natural and human- dominated systems; * To determine how biological and ecological responses are manifested at higher levels of ecosystem hierarchy (populations, communities, ecosystem, landscape) of terrestrial environments; * To identify changes in structural components (e.g., landscape pattern, community structure, architectural properties of vegetation), caused by different atmospheric, climatic, and land-use activities that will predict the future structure and distribution of ecosystems; * To understand and predict the effects of combinations of altered CO2, climate conditions, changing resource constraints and land-use change on biodiversity (e.g., genetic diversity, species diversity, habitat diversity). (3) Ecosystem Feedbacks to Global Change There is a need to better understand the full range of interactions and feedbacks between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere (e.g., water and energy exchange, aerosol exchange, nutrient fluxes, biotic propagule movement, etc.). Research is encouraged on how species composition, ecological properties and processes influence the ability of managed and unmanaged ecosystems, for example: * To control or modify physical factors such as albedo, regional precipitation, wind speed, and particulate movement in water and air; * To control biogeochemical cycling, nutrient retention, and trace gas fluxes that affect soil fertility, water quality, and atmospheric composition; * To regulate the exchange of energy, water, trace gases, aerosols, and biotic materials between the atmosphere and terrestrial environment under variable and/or changing climatic conditions; * To develop and validate ecosystem components and interactive surface- atmosphere processes in integrative climate models. Research proposed for this competition is encouraged to take advantage of existing programs, research sites or data sets of other agencies with multidisciplinary efforts. Examples of such existing efforts are: NASA field campaigns (FIFE, BOREAS), DOE's National Environmental Research Parks (NERPS), Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) field sites, the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains site, and Program on Ecosystem Research (PER) sites, NSF's Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites and Land Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) sites, and USDA's Management Systems Evaluation Areas (MSEA). In addition to interest in proposals in these three areas, one-year scoping proposals also are encouraged to develop and demonstrate the feasibility of new experimental approaches and/or facilities for field studies to investigate the responses and/or feedback effects of terrestrial ecosystems to global environmental changes. The agencies involved in the TECO program recognize the need for new, innovative field experimental approaches and facilities to study interactive effects of environmental changes on terrestrial ecosystems. Accordingly, this announcement also solicits one-year scoping proposals to design and test the feasibility of new approaches and/or field experimental systems for studying the effects of environmental changes on ecosystems. WHO MAY SUBMIT All U.S. institutions eligible to receive support from DOE, NASA, USDA, and the NSF may submit proposals in response to this announcement. The NSF also has express statutory authority to support research performed by other Federal agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). The Foundation ordinarily does not encourage research proposals from other Federal agencies or FFRDCs; however, for this particular announcement the Foundation will consider proposals for research and logistic support activities of other Federal agencies or FFRDCs directed to the goals of special national and international research programs. Scientists from other Federal agencies or FFRDCs are encouraged to participate by developing collaborations with university scientists. Similarly, university scientists may be benefited by collaborations with scientists from Federal agencies and FFRDCs. Any proposals under these categories should not include costs related to Civil Service Salaries for federal scientists. AWARDS Proposals may request funding for projects with a duration not to exceed three years and a total budget not to exceed $500,000 per year. The NSF is the lead agency in this effort and although proposals submitted to this interagency announcement will be sent to NSF, the participating agencies will jointly administer the program throughout the entire phase from the receipt of proposals until the close-out of awards. Final selection of awardees by the agencies will be determined by the review panel's recommendations and programmatic considerations. Each award will be supported by a single agency. Overall estimated amount of funding is $6 M for fiscal year 1996, depending upon the availability of funds from each agency. Each agency supporting an award will act as the sole administrative unit for that award although all successful awards will be identified with the joint effort. Principal investigators may be requested to modify their budgets and work plans to comply with special requirements of the particular agency supporting their award. Individual agency contacts are listed later in this announcement. The principal investigator of an award will be requested to travel to Washington, DC for a meeting of all principal investigators to discuss additional collaboration, sharing of information and integration of efforts among successful projects and other appropriate efforts discussed previously. AWARD ADMINISTRATION NSF awards made as a result of this document will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Condition" or FDP-II, "Federal Demonstration Project." Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publication Unit, phone (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail (Internet: pubs@nsf.gov). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 95-26, July 1995), for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO is (202) 783-3238 for subscription information. USDA award authority for this program is contained in section 2(b) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)). Under this program, subject to the availability of funds, the Secretary may award competitive research grants, for periods not to exceed five years, for the support of research projects to further the programs of the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Proposals may be submitted by any state agricultural experiment station, college, private organization, corporation, or individual. Proposals from scientists at non-United States organizations will not be considered for support. Pursuant to Section 712 of Public Law 103-330 (the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995), funds available in fiscal year 1995 to pay indirect costs on research grants awarded competitively by CSREES may not exceed 14 per centum of the total Federal funds provided under each award. In addition, pursuant to Sec. 719(b) of Public Law 103-330, in the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized to be purchased with the funds provided under this Program, entities are encouraged to purchase only American-made equipment or products. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS The NSF, DOE, NASA , and USDA use similar criteria in review of competitive grant proposals, for example, as described in the NSF document "Grant Proposal Guide" (GPG, NSF 95-27). Proposals will be evaluated through a merit review process conducted jointly by the participating agencies based on the agencies' criteria cited above. The merit review process will center upon the following criteria: 1) Research performance competence - This criterion relates to the capability of the investigator(s), the technical soundness of the proposed approach, and the adequacy of the institutional resources available. 2) Intrinsic merit of the research - This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the research will lead to new discoveries or fundamental advances within its field of science, or have substantial impact on progress in that field or in other scientific fields. 3) Utility or relevance of the research - Proposals will be evaluated with respect to their relevance to the terms in one or more of the three important areas of this Announcement described in the Program Description section. This criterion also is used to assess the likelihood that the research can contribute to the achievement of a goal that is extrinsic or in addition to that of the research field itself, and thereby serve as the basis for new or improved technology or assist in the solution of societal problems. 4) Collaboration with other efforts - Attention will be given to each proposal's ability to strengthen collaboration and add value to other proposed and/or ongoing scientific work. The proposed research also will be judged on how effectively it builds upon existing research, databases, and/or modeling capabilities, and how it links with ongoing federal and university projects relevant to global change. Coordination/collaboration plans will be evaluated in terms of demonstrated opportunity, linkage, compatibility, readiness, and feasibility of the research. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT To provide a consistent format for the review process for this interagency announcement, the preparation and submission of proposals must follow the guidelines given in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF 95-27. Note especially that there is a limit of 15 pages for the Project Description section; visual materials and tables count toward the 15 page limit. No letters of endorsement or other appendices are allowed. Required NSF forms are found in GPG which can be obtained from: NSF Publications and Supplies Unit 4201 Wilson Boulevard Room P-15 Arlington, VA 22230 Tel: 703-306-1130, or via e-mail from Internet: pubs@nsf.gov PROPOSAL SUBMISSION Eighteen copies of the formal proposal must be placed in a single package clearly marked "Interagency Terrestrial Ecology and Global Change Initiative" and mailed to: Ecosystem Studies Program Division of Environmental Biology, Rm. 635 National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 Proposals must be received by NSF no later than April 26. Proposals received after the deadline will be returned without further consideration. The PI is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the proposal as submitted. CONTACTS NSF: Dr. Cliff Dahm Dr. Jim Coleman Division of Environmental Biology Division of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience, Room 685 Room 635 National Science Foundation National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd. 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 Arlington, VA 22230 Telephone: 703-306-1479 Telephone: 703-306-1421 Fax: 703-306-0367 Fax: 703-306-0349 email: cdahm@nsf.gov email: jcoleman@nsf.gov DOE: Dr. Jerry W. Elwood U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health & Environmental Research ER-74, GTN Washington, D.C. 20585 Telephone: 301-903-4583 Fax: 301-903-8519 email: Jerry.Elwood@oer.doe.gov NASA:Dr. Diane Wickland Terrestrial Ecology Program Office of Mission to Planet Earth National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546 Telephone: 202-358-0272 Fax: 202-358-2771 email: dwickland@mtpe.hq.nasa.gov USDA: Dr. Timothy C. Strickland National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program U.S. Department of Agriculture Ag Box 2241 Washington, D.C. 20250-2241 Telephone: 202-401-4082 Fax: 202-401-6488 email: tstrickland@reeusda.gov The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for the research findings or their interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists and engineers and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research related programs described here. In accordance with federal statues, regulations, and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on NSF projects. See the program announcement or contact the program coordinator at (703) 306- 1636. Privacy Act and Public Burden. The information requested on proposal forms is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process; to applicant institutions/grantees; to provide or obtain data regarding the application review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers, and researchers as necessary to complete assigned work; and to other government agencies in order to coordinate programs. See Systems of Records, NSF 50, Principal Investigators/Proposal File and Associated Records, and NSF-51, 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995). Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records, 59 Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Herman G. Fleming, Reports Clearance Officer, Contracts, Policy, and Oversight, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment, or general information. To access NSF TDD dial (703) 306-0090; for FIRS, 1-800-877-8339. Activities described in this publication are in the category 47.074, Biological Sciences and 47.050, Geological Sciences in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). OMB 3145-0058 NSF 96-49 PT 34 KW 1230025, 1007025 ------ end of nsf9649.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Feb 26 13:05:42 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18919; Mon, 26 Feb 96 13:05:36 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa11153; 26 Feb 96 13:04 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09410; Mon, 26 Feb 96 09:50:41 PST Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 09:50:40 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu Cc: lmerpi@lternet.edu, cDybas@lternet.edu Subject: "Science on the Editorial Page" (fwd from ESANEWS) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:40:00 EST From: Esa Headquarters To: Multiple recipients of list ESANEWS Subject: "Science on the Editorial Page" Science on the Editorial Page The recent meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) featured a session entitled, "Science on the Editorial Page." Organized by Rick Borchelt, of the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy, and Lynn Friedmann, of Friedmann Communications, the session sought to provide information on the workings of the media, particularly the editorial and op-ed pages of daily newspapers which represent a "great unknown" to many. Speakers noted that newspaper editorials are well-read and influential, yet there is general unfamiliarity with the process by which newspapers come up with their editorial opinions. Adjacent to the editorial page is the "op-ed" section containing by-lined articles which can be strident, or funny, but are written with one purpose in mind--to persuade. In today's climate of uncertain funding and a citizenry that in many quarters is encouraged to be apprehensive about science and technology, panelists pointed out that the editorial page represents a vastly underutilized avenue to reach and influence policy makers and the public at large. Most editorial boards want to hear from science and technology experts. Session speakers noted that science issues make up only a small percentage of op-eds (a 1991 study of 5 major U.S. newspapers revealed that approximately 4% of the editorials dealt with science topics). Speakers explained that this is due to a variety of factors, including the very limited space on the editorial page, the need for quick-turn-around time, accessibility of the author, the fact that science pieces are often written too densely and editors often do not have the time to work with the author to make the piece more readable, and that many scientists simply do not submit op-ed articles. Yet according to multiple studies, almost as many people read the editorial page as read the sports page of their newspaper. Panelists pointed out that newspaper editorial boards welcome information packets that provide them with fact sheets on the current research status of some topic, particularly if they receive the information so that it fits a timely concern or issue. David Jarmul, (Howard Huges Medical Institute) who directed the National Academy of Sciences Op-Ed Service from its beginning in 1983 until early this year, offered a series of pointers on writing op-ed pieces, summarized below: - Track the news and jump at opportunities. Timing is essential; - Limit the article to 750 words--about 3 double-spaced, typed pages. Editors are usually not willing to take the time to cut longer articles down to size; - Put your main point on top--take no more than 2 or 3 paragraphs to make your main point, convincing the reader that it's worth his or her valuable time to continue; - Tell your readers why they should care--appeals to self-interest are usually more effective than abstract punditry; - Make a single point and make it well--if you cannot explain your message in a sentence or two, you're trying to cover too much. - Offer specific recommendations. Editors will not be satisfied with a call for more research; give your opinion on how to improve matters; - Showing is better than discussing. Use examples whenever possible, ones that readers can understand and care about. - Don't be afraid of the personal voice. First-person exposition is unusual in academic writing, but can be the best way to help readers understand why you care about the subject; - Avoid jargon. Simple language does not mean simple thinking; it means you are being considerate of readers who lack your expertise and are sitting half-awake at the breakfast table; - Use short sentences and paragraphs--relying mainly on simple declarative sentences; - Use the active voice; - Avoid tedious rebuttals--if you have written your article in response to an earlier piece, avoid the temptation to prepare a point-by-point rebuttal--just mention the earlier article once and then argue your own case; - Make your ending a winner. It is important to summarize your argument in a strong final paragraph. Many casual readers scan the headline, skim the opening column, and then read only the final paragraph and byline. One literary device that often works well is to reprise a phrase or thought made at the beginning, closing the circle. - Relax and have fun. Newspaper editors despair of weighty articles--called thumb-suckers--and yearn for pieces filled with spirit, grace, and humor. Readers seek to be entertained and learn something in the bargain. It is possible to combine thoughtful analysis with an engaging style. -Prepare your article typed, double-spaced, with wide margins. List your name, address, phone, and social security number at the top. If you want the article returned if it is rejected, include a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Learn the name of the op-ed editor and send a brief cover letter, explaining whether you are offering the article on an exclusive or a regional basis. ------------ End Forwarded Message ------------- From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Feb 27 09:55:50 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23139; Tue, 27 Feb 96 09:55:47 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id ab07521; 27 Feb 96 9:55 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17639; Tue, 27 Feb 96 06:49:53 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA14824; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 07:50:10 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 07:50:10 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #30 - VA/HUD Appropriations Roster (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR House and Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittees The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies are responsible for funding the National Science Foundation and NASA, as well as EPA, the Veterans' Administration, Housing and Urban Development, and numerous other federal programs. Congress deals primarily with two types of bills: Authorizing legislation gives a federal department or agency permission to spend money and sets policy direction, while appropriations legislation provides the actual money. While major agencies and programs are supposed to be authorized before having funds appropriated for them, many receive funding through appropriations bills without being authorized. The House must act first on appropriations legislation; after the House has passed a bill the Senate drafts its version. Differences are reconciled in a House-Senate conference. HOUSE VA/HUD APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE H-143 Capitol Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 202-225-3241 Republicans: Democrats: Jerry Lewis (CA), Chair Louis Stokes (OH), Ranking Tom DeLay (TX) Alan Mollohan (WV) Barbara Vucanovich (NV) Jim Chapman (TX) James Walsh (NY) Marcy Kaptur (OH) David Hobson (OH) Joe Knollenberg (MI) *Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ) *Mark Neumann (WI) SENATE VA/HUD APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE SD-131 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 202-224-2833 Republicans: Democrats: Christopher Bond (MO), Chair Barbara Mikulski (MD), Ranking Conrad Burns (MT) Patrick Leahy (VT) Ted Stevens (AK) +J. Bennett Johnston (LA) Richard Shelby (AL) Frank Lautenberg (NJ) Robert Bennett (UT) Bob Kerrey (NE) Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO) +Retiring at end of term. *Freshman Member. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Feb 27 22:36:47 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25676; Tue, 27 Feb 96 22:36:44 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa18223; 27 Feb 96 22:36 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23648; Tue, 27 Feb 96 19:31:28 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA25411; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 20:31:50 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 20:31:50 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #34 - Charles Curtis Address (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR DOE's Charles Curtis on the Responsibilities of Scientists In a speech to the 50th Anniversary Symposium of Associated Universities, Inc., Deputy Secretary of Energy Charles B. Curtis discussed the need for greater involvement by scientists in the political process. Excerpts from his address follow: "...if the needs and opportunities for publicly supported science and technology are so apparent, why the budget threats? "I believe the answer has two foundations. The first is the more obvious -- as a nation, we need to reduce Federal spending and restore fiscal discipline.... The second explanation...goes to the willingness of the Nation to make this investment. And that explanation is that the public's trust in the institution of government, its faith in science and technology, and its perception of benefit have all eroded perceptibly since the days of Vannevar Bush." "...we...need to make clear to the Congress that just as our duty for fiscal discipline is rooted in our obligation to future generations, so, too, do we owe a duty to future generations to assure that our Nation's capacity to shape the future through scientific research and technological innovation is continually renewed. The Congress must be pressed to see it as its responsibility to honor both obligations: its duty for fiscal discipline, and its responsibility to sponsor and sustain our Nation's capacity for innovation. Arriving at a proper balance of these twin obligations will test the judgment and the wisdom of our elected representatives and the effectiveness of our advocacy." "But for that advocacy to be truly effective, we must deal with the second root cause for the attack on R&D funding -- the attack that is based on the erosion of confidence in the institutions of government, the lessening of faith in the benign and curative powers of science and technology, and the failure to perceive a recognizable societal value arising out of the Government's R&D expenditure." "To restore public confidence in the Nation's investment in science and technology, we must build back trust in science and technology itself and in the public institutions responsible for administering that investment. The first trust building challenge for science and technology may be easier met than the challenge to restore public trust in the work of its government -- though both will be difficult." "...the reality of our times is that the public whose dollars we propose to use for this investment (and the public representatives for that matter) need convincing. And it is the scientific community that must make this case. Government officials cannot carry this advocacy responsibility as well or as convincingly (or some may say `at all')." "...for our Nation to be willing to sustain its investment in science and technology, the scientific community must be willing to define and explain its work better in terms of public benefits. Perhaps I should say that somewhat differently, so that I not be misunderstood to be urging more of a shift from fundamental to applied research. I am not. Rather, I am urging that the scientific community needs to do a better job of articulating the relevance of its work in terms that the public can understand and relate to." "You have the credibility to discuss science, to speak effectively about the complex relationship with technology, and to explain how advances in one field often produce unexpected insight into another." "We in Government cannot do it without you. To paraphrase a familiar expression: `Now is the time for all good scientists to come to the aid of their country.'" ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Thu Feb 29 18:04:44 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04768; Thu, 29 Feb 96 18:04:41 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa27940; 29 Feb 96 13:59 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17362; Thu, 29 Feb 96 10:42:01 PST Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:42:01 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: USFS National Grasslands Mgmt. Review-Comments Requested Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NOTE THAT WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST ARRIVE BY MARCH 11, 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newsgroups: sci.bio.ecology Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 11:29:35 -0500 Sender: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" From: Esa Headquarters Subject: National Grassland Management Review Forest Service Releases Grassland Management Review The USDA Forest Service is soliciting comment from the public on its recently released National Grasslands Management Review Report. This review was performed in response to internal and external debate over the mission and direction for the national grasslands, as well as proposed national legislation specific to the grasslands (Public Rangelands Management Act, S.1459). The report is the result of two weeks of interviews, conducted in November 1995, with conservationists; FS employees; grazing permitees and grazing associations; oil, gas, and coal interests; sportsmen; state and local resource managers; state and local government administrators; and other interested parties. During the review, the review team evaluated achievements of the current system of grassland management, identified unique characteristics of the national grasslands, and identified areas for improvement of grassland management. The review, as well as public comments received, will serve as the guiding force for the preparation of a comprehensive action plan for the national grasslands, as well as revision of forest plans for individual grasslands. To ensure that sound ecological principles are used in the management of the national grasslands, researchers are strongly encouraged to comment to the Forest Service on the management review report. Copies of the report can be obtained by contacting Sue Risbrudt, Forest Service Range Management Staff, at (202) 205-1460. Comment on the plan should be sent to the attention of Deen Boe, Deputy Director of Range Management, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 20090-6090. The Forest Service would like to receive comments in writing by March 11, 1996. A brief summary of the report follows: The national grasslands had their origin in the 1930s, when under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 the federal government *purchased or otherwise acquired* 11 million acres of submarginal farmlands to *.. develop a program of land conservation and land utilization, in order thereby to correct maladjustment in land use...*. The management of 3.85 million acres of these lands was assumed by the Forest Service in 1954, while the remainder was transferred to the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. These Forest Service lands were formally designated national grasslands in 1960 by the Secretary of Agriculture. Today, there are 20 national grasslands located in 12 different states, comprising about 2 percent of the land managed by the Forest Service. The need for such a review became necessary as the national grasslands have experienced changes in resource demands. The interests of long-standing users, such as livestock grazers, mineral developers, and hunters, conflict with those of recreational users and conservationists. Furthermore, because 17 of the national grasslands are located in the Great Plains, they play a crucial role in maintaining biological diversity within the Great Plains prairie ecosystem. The threat to biological diversity in the Great Plains is alarming. The vegetation that supports wildlife species has shown a sharp decline. Some states have had declines in tallgrass prairie of 99.9 percent. Furthermore, it is estimated that less than 34 percent of true mixed grass prairie and less than 23 percent of true shortgrass prairie still exist in native vegetation. Loss of native vegetation is due primarily to damming of river systems, draining of wetlands, overgrazing by livestock, suppression of fire, invasion of exotic plant species, and fragmentation of native grasslands. Due to habitat loss, wildlife species have subsequently shown a sharp decline. There are currently 59 listed threatened or endangered species in the Plains, and another 728 candidates for listing. Of the 330 bird species that are known to breed in the Plains, many have shown 14 - 91 percent decline. And the prairie dog, a keystone species of the Great Plains, has been limited to less than five percent of its historic range. The report presents the review*s findings and desired futures, or targets for management actions, in four major objective areas: Policy Framework, Working with Others, Effective Organizations, and Resource Stewardship and the Scientific Base. Desired futures include: - Creation of a commonly understood vision for the national grasslands; - Exercising a greater level of conservation leadership in the national grasslands; - Collaboration with other agencies to ensure needed skill levels and expertise are available; - Greater collaboration with ecological researchers at western universities; - Revision of forest plans which provide a comprehensive assessment of resource capabilities, demands, and issues associated with national grasslands, as well as scientifically credible standards and guidelines for meeting resource management policies and objectives; - Establishment of monitoring programs for periodic assessment of resource conditions and trends and the effectiveness of prescribed management activities. ------------------------------ End of BENE Digest 453 ********************** From r_waide@upr1.upr.clu.edu Thu Feb 29 21:30:37 1996 Received: from mars.itc.Virginia.EDU by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AB05373; Thu, 29 Feb 96 21:30:31 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id ac18991; 29 Feb 96 19:41 EST Received: from UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20028; Thu, 29 Feb 96 16:28:32 PST Received: from [] by UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU; Thu, 29 Feb 96 20:25 AST Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 20:21:17 - 240 From: r_waide Subject: NCEAS Biodiversity proposal To: pi@lternet.edu Reply-To: r_waide@upr1.upr.clu.edu Message-Id: <15937664007F4224C4@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU> Organization: Terrestrial Ecology X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) X-Envelope-To: pi@lternet.edu Comments: Authenticated sender is Priority: A Status: ORp SINCE THIS IS NOW FUNDED, I NEED TO ASK YOU TO CONFIRM YOUR SITE'S PARTICIPATION AND TO SUPPLY THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO WILL REPRESENT YOU. I ALSO SOLICIT THE NAMES OF NON-LTER SCIENTISTS WHOSE WORK IN BIODIVERSITY SUGGESTS THAT THEY WOULD BE IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WORKSHOP. I WOULD ALSO BE INTERESTED IN SUGGESTIONS ABOUT NON-LTER DATA SETS THAT MIGHT BE USED IN OUR ANALYSES. BOB WAIDE An Analysis of the Relationship between Productivity and Diversity using Experimental Results from the Long-Term Ecological Research Network Robert B. Waide Terrestrial Ecology Division University of Puerto Rico and Michael R. Willig Department of Biological Sciences & The Institute for Environmental Sciences Texas Tech University Summary We propose to synthesize data available from the 18 Long-Term Ecological Research sites and the literature to search for general patterns in the relationship between productivity and diversity of bot h producers and consumers. We will emphasize intra- and inter-ecosystem comparisons over broad ranges of productivity, diversity, and spatial scale. Meta-analysis will be used to synthesize results from experimental manipulations of productivity at LTER sites. The product of the analysis will be a published synthetic review to be used by ecologists and resource managers. Problem Statement The existence of a causal relationship between diversity and productivity has long been hypothesized by ecologists (Connell and Orias 1964, Leigh 1965, MacArthur and Pianka 1966, Pianka 1966, Rosenzw eig 1971, Brown 1973). However, despite careful efforts to document the empirical relationship between diversity and productivity (Tilman 1982, Ricklefs 1987, Rosenzweig and Abramsky 1993), there is still disagreement even about the direction of the correlation (Brown 1973, Owen 1988). There is a considerable body of evidence suggesting that plant diversity is a unimodal function of productivi ty (Tilman and Pacala 1993), but such a clear-cut pattern is not apparent for animal diversity (Emmons 1984). Some evidence suggests that the relationship between diversity and productivity may be qualitatively different for producers than it is for consumers, especially vertebrate consumers (Huston 1993, Wright et al. 1993). A recent attempt to evaluate proposed causal mechanisms for observe d patterns failed to support any of the existing hypotheses (Rosenzweig and Abramsky 1993). Successful attempts to identify causal mechanisms must broaden the scope of the inquiry. Results from empirical and experimental approaches must be integrated into a common theoretical framework. Ne w empirical analyses must incorporate the full range of productivity and biodiversity within the geographical unit of study in order to generate a complete picture of the relationship between the two variables. Further work should evaluate proposed causal mechanisms for generality over several trophic levels and in a wide range of ecosystems. New efforts ought to be mounted to examine and inco rporate into theory changes in the relationship between diversity and productivity over successional time. Finally, syntheses must incorporate analysis of the scale-dependence of observed patterns (Wright et al. 1993). Much of the information needed for further analysis of the causal relationship between diversity and productivity is available through the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network. The LTER Netw ork comprises 18 sites representative of aquatic, terrestrial, and oceanic ecosystems (Table 1). Long-term measures of populations representing a range of trophic levels are available at each site. The large size of sites and their widespread distribution provide opportunities for intra- and intersite comparisons over gradients of biodiversity and productivity. In addition, long-term measures of biodiversity and productivity provide an opportunity to examine their relationship over successional time. Data from each of these studies is collected, archived, and managed by professionals at each site who are organized into a data management network. Table 1. The Long-Term Ecological Research Network Site Ecosystem H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, OR Temperate coniferous forest Arctic Tundra, AK Arctic tundra, lakes, streams Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest, AK Taiga Cedar Creek Natural History Area, MiN Eastern deciduous forest/tallgrass prairie Central Plains Experimental Range, CO Shortgrass steppe Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, NC Eastern deciduous forest Harvard Forest, MA Eastern deciduous forest Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, NH Eastern deciduous forest Jornada Experimental Range, NM Hot desert Kellogg Biological Station, MI Row-crop agriculture/prairie Konza Prairie Research Natural Area, KS Tallgrass prairie Luquillo Experimental Forest, PR Tropical rain forest McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica Polar desert oases Niwot Ridge-Green Lakes Valley, CO Alpine tundra North Temperate Lakes, WI North temperate lakes/deciduous forest Palmer Station, Antactica Polar marine Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, NM Subalpine mixed conifer forest/meadow, riparian forest, dry mountainland, grassland, cold desert, hot desert Virginia Coast Reserve, VA Coastal barrier islands The LTER Network is particularly appropriate as a base for the proposed synthesis. The control of primary productivity is one of the five core research areas at each LTER site. Because of this emph asis, each site has available direct measures of productivity as well as information on surrogate measures such as soil fertility. The methodology used to measure productivity varies with the ecosys tem characteristics at each site, but most sites have measurements spanning a range of environmental conditions. Moreover, at least 15 of the sites have manipulated productivity by varying site-spec ific controlling factors. These manipulations are mostly fertilizations, but they span a wide range of ecosystems including lakes, streams, forests, grasslands, and agriculture. At some sites, both aquatic and terrestrial manipulations have been done. In addition, the effects of these manipulations have been followed both in producers and higher- order consumers, which permits a comparison of responses in these two groups. We propose to convene a working group comprising representatives of each LTER site and six other scientists to analyze and evaluate published and unpublished data bearing on the relationship between diversity and productivity. This working group will use existing long-term measures and experimental results to search for general patterns and the mechanisms causing them over broad ranges of produ ctivity, diversity, spatial scale, and trophic level. The group will also propose new experiments that can be conducted in or out of the LTER Network in order to further our understanding. Rationale for NCEAS Support The concept for this proposal was developed at a workshop at the LTER Coordinating Committee meeting held in October, 1995. The purpose of this workshop was to explore ways in which the LTER Network could incorporate studies of the control of biodiversity into its research agenda. Since biodiversity is not one of the core LTER research areas, no funds exist within the LTER Network to conduct t he kind of synthetic study we are proposing. Collaboration with the NCEAS was suggested as a logical way of accomplishing our goal. The proposed agenda requires an intellectually-oriented atmosphere supported by state-of-the-art computing, data management, communication, and statistical facilities. The National Center for Ecolo gical Analysis and Synthesis is one place where all of these requirements can be met. Although some of the activities we outline might be accomplished through a stand-alone workshop, the NCEAS is th e only facility available to us that has an institutional commitment to the kind of synthesis we wish to accomplish and the resources to insure the success of the activity. The planning and data man agement activities leading up to the convening of the working group are crucial to the endeavor. Therefore, the institution hosting the working group must make a commitment to data transfer and prep aration prior to the meeting (see below). Further, continuity in data management, hardware, and software is required over a long period of time to facilitate follow-up meetings and the preparation of final results. The NCEAS insures this kind of continuity. Proposed Activities and Timetable We propose a week-long working session for 24 participants followed by a second week in residence for a subset (8) of the group. The working session will compare data, summarize general trends, prop ose and attempt to test causal mechanisms for observed patterns, and develop a list of further experiments that need to be accomplished. During the second week, the smaller group will perform more s ophisticated analyses, summarize the results, and begin to prepare a synthetic review of the topic. A subsequent meeting of the smaller group will be held for one week approximately six months after the working meeting to conclude analyses and initiate preparation of manuscripts. Participants in the first meeting will include representatives from the 18 LTER sites, five scientists invited for their previous contributions to the topic, and an expert in the analysis of complex data sets. The latter six people plus Waide and Willig will participate in the second week of the first meeting and the subsequent second meeting. Detection of a general relationship between diversity and productivity based on sites that are embedded in different ecological and biogeographic contexts requires the use of a variety of quantitativ e approaches. To facilitate that goal, we will use meta-analysis (Glass 1976, Hunter and Schmidt 1990) in combination with omnibus testing (Hedges and Olkin 1985) as analytical tools for comparing a nd combining results from separate but similar studies, such as those conducted at different LTER sites on the effect of productivity on diversity. In particular, meta-analysis provides an estimate of the magnitude of the effect caused by a factor (i.e., effect size), provides better control of Type II errors (Schmidt 1992) than do traditional statistical approaches, and does not depend on samp le size within each study (Rosenthal 1990). The organization of the workshop is designed to facilitate a quantitative synthesis of the effects of productivity on diversity based on a meta-analytical approach (Table 2; Cooper 1982). Problem fo rmulation and identification of sources of data will be accomplished prior to the workshop. Determination of the criteria for data selection as well as the actual selection of data will occur during the first week of the workshop. Analysis and interpretation of the data will begin during the second week of the workshop, continue during the intervening period prior to the second meeting, and be finalized at the second meeting. Publication considerations and production of a manuscript will begin during the second meeting. Table 2. Delineation of activities and schedule for the production of an integrative review via meta-analysis of the relationship between productivity and diversity (stages of meta-analysis follow t hose of Cooper [1982]). Numeric superscripts after stages identify primary participant in activities: 1, LTER Coordinating Committee, Waide, and Willig,; 2, all working group participants; 3, small working group. ____________________________________________________________________ Stage Time Description of Activity ____________________________________________________________________ Problem formulation1 10/21-23/95 Delineation of research topic: "The relation of diversity to productivity" Data collection2 2/96-6/96 1) Preparation of data from each of the 18 LTER sites 2) Perusal of literature for data on productivity and diversity from other, similar ecosystems 3) Transferral of data to NCEAS Data evaluation2 6/17/96 1) Comparison of data and trends with ecosystems (2 days) to 2) Comparison of data and trends among ecosystems (2 days) 6/23/96 3) Consideration of scale-dependence (1 day) 4) Comparison of experimental results, determination of data selection criteria for meta-analysis, preliminary selection of data sets for meta-analyses (2 days) Analysis/interpretation3 6/24/96 1) Final selection of data for meta- analysis to 2) Preliminary analyses, including meta-analysis 6/30/96 3) Delineation of analytical responsibilities and tasks related to synthesis Public presentation3 11/96 1) Finalization and oral presentation of analyses to small working group 2) Production of a working paper to act as a basis for publications 3) Assignation of tasks for detailed manuscript preparation ______________________________________________________________________ Anticipated Results and Beneficiaries Two products are anticipated from this proposal. The principal investigators, in collaboration with the participants, will be responsible for writing a synthetic review summarizing the results of th e working session. Possible targets for this review paper include Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics and Ecological Monographs. A shorter version of the paper will be prepared for Bioscience or Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Audience for these papers will include investigators interested in population, community, and ecosystem ecology as well as conservation biologists. Generalizati ons developed during the working session will be useful to natural resource managers and others interested in the maintenance of biological diversity. Required Resources This proposal requests 31 round-trip airfares, local transportation, and per diem (including housing allowance) for 280 participant-days. In addition, the cooperation of NCEAS staff in data transfer , management, storage, and analysis is requested. A large conference room with projection facilities, smaller break-out rooms, and access to computer facilities for all participants are needed. Air travel will be from the following locations to Santa Barbara: Corvallis, OR Woods Hole, MA Fairbanks, AK Minneapolis, MN (2) Ft. Collins, CO Athens, GA Petersham, MA Syracuse, NY Durham, NC Hickory Corners, MI Manhattan, KS San Juan, PR (2) Reno, NV Boulder, CO Madison, WI Albuquerque, NM Charlottesville, VA Lubbock, TX (2) Also 10 other round-trip airfares from as yet unspecified locations are requested Literature Cited Brown, J.H. 1973. Species diversity of seed-eating desert rodents in sand dune habitats. Ecology 54:775-787. Connell, J.H and E. Orias. 1964. The ecological regulation of species diversity. American Naturalist 98:399-414. Cooper, H.M. 1982. Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Educational Research 52:291-302. Emmons, L.H. 1984. Geographic variation in densities and diversities of non-flying mammals in Amazonia. Biotropica 16:210-222. Fernandez-Duque, E., and C. Valeggia. 1993. Meta-analysis: A valuable tool in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 8:555-561. Glass, G.V. 1976. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5:3-8. Hedges, L.V.., and U. Olkin. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Hunter, J.E., and F.L. Schmidt. 1990. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California. Huston, M. 1993. Biological diversity, soils, and economics. Science 262:1676-1680. Leigh, E.G., Jr. 1965. On the relationship between productivity, biomass, diversity and stability of a community. Proc. Natl. Aced. Sci. USA 53:777-783. MacArthur, R.H. and E.R. Pianka. 1966. On the optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist 100:603-609. Owen, J.G. 1988. On productivity as a predictor as a predictor of rodent and carnivore diversity. Ecology 69:1161-1165. Pianka, E.R. 1966. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: A review of concepts. American Naturalist 100:33-46. Ricklefs, R.E. 1987. Community diversity: Relative roles of local and regional processes, Science 235:167-171. Rosenthal, R. 1990. An evaluation f procedures and results. Pp. 123-137, in The Future of meta-analysis (K.W. Wachter and M. L .Straf, eds.). Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Rosenzweig, M.L. 1971. Paradox of enrichment: Destabilization of exploitation systems in ecological time. Science 171:385-387. Rosenzweig, M.L. and Z. Abramsky. 1993. How are diversity and productivity related? in Species Diversity in Ecological Communities R.E. Ricklefs and D. Schluter (eds.) Chicago. IL: University of Ch icago Press. Tilman, D. 1982. Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press. Tilman, D. and S. Pacala. 1993. The maintenance of species richness in plant communities. in Species Diversity in Ecological Communities R.E. Ricklefs and D. Schluter (eds.) Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press. Wright, D.H., D.J. Currie, and B.A. Maurer. 1993. Energy supply and patterns of species richness on local and regional scales. in Species Diversity in Ecological Communities R.E. Ricklefs and D. S chluter (eds.) Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Mar 20 11:59:54 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09949; Wed, 20 Mar 96 11:59:52 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa02797; 20 Mar 96 11:59 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18296; Wed, 20 Mar 96 08:50:39 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA29802; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:51:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:51:14 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF FY 1997 Budget on the Web (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Subject: NSF FY 1997 Budget on the Web You can access detailed info on the NSF's FY 1997 Budget Request right now through the NSF home page. The address is: http://www.nsf.gov/ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Mar 20 14:02:18 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10541; Wed, 20 Mar 96 14:01:40 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa02753; 20 Mar 96 14:00 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19530; Wed, 20 Mar 96 10:48:44 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03001; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 11:49:02 -0700 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 11:49:01 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #41 - EOS Hearing (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Scientists Support Earth Observing System at House Science Hearing In the past year, NASA's Mission to Planet Earth and its main component, the Earth Observing System (EOS), were vulnerable targets for budget cuts in the battle to reduce the federal deficit. Appropriators in the House proposed reducing Mission to Planet Earth funding by $80 million from the Administration's FY 1996 request of $1.34 billion. (Due to the budget impasse between Congress and the Administration, fiscal year 1996 funding for NASA programs has not yet been finalized.) House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA), who has been critical of the Administration's climate research programs, scheduled a March 6 hearing to review funding for EOS and U.S. research on global climate change in general. In his opening statement, Walker charged that "countless times...people have taken it upon themselves to theorize about my motivations with regard to Mission Planet Earth.... So, today, let me set the record straight.... I do support pursuing a research program that obtains the best affordable research on the fundamental physics of global climate." Walker questioned, however, whether the lifecycle costs (estimated by GAO at $33 billion through 2020) would make EOS unsustainable in future years. Dr. Edward Frieman, Director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, presented recent results of a ongoing National Research Council (NRC) review of Mission to Planet Earth and the entire U.S. Global Change Research Program. While reviewers were sensitive to concerns about budget pressures and politically-driven science, Frieman said, they concluded that "the overall quality of the program's science is high...[and the researchers] go where science, not politics, leads." With respect to EOS, "the centerpiece" of the U.S.'s observational program, the NRC concluded that further improvements were needed, including streamlining the data and information system (EOSDIS) and developing advanced technologies to reduce future costs. NASA's Associate Administrator for Mission to Planet Earth, Charles Kennel, testified that the program "was, is, and will be" science-driven and peer-reviewed, and would include a biennial evaluation to incorporate new technologies and seek commercial, interagency, international partnerships where possible. Aram Mika of Hughes Aircraft Corporation agreed that Mission to Planet Earth was already making use of state-of-the-art technologies and that the spacecraft and instrument size "flow logically from the science requirements.... I cannot recall a program with better, tighter collaboration with the science community," he stated. Rep. Harold Volkmer (D-MO) inquired about the impact of reducing the EOS budget by $1-2 million annually. Brad Hathaway of GAO responded that NASA would get less value for its money. He added that EOS was not the primary reason for the gap between NASA's plans and projected budgets, and that many federal agencies were having similar problems. Several questions were raised about achieving cost-savings by purchasing commercial data and making use of DOD technologies; Kennel replied that NASA was considering those options. Representing differing views of global warming, members of the second panel disagreed on the interpretations of climate change data, but all seven agreed on the need for further data. Robert Balling of Arizona State University declared, "No scientist would ever come here and say we don't need more data." The witnesses also stressed that continued data collection was the best way to avoid politicization of the science. The University of Virginia's Robert Davis stated that continued monitoring and archiving of data was essential for an unbiased analysis of climate change. "Honest and open debate is key to making sound societal decisions," added John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Robert Watson, OSTP Associate Director for the Environment, related the latest findings of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and said the uncertainties of global warming argued strongly for a comprehensive research effort. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia believed "firmly in collection of the facts," and suggested that the industrial and environmental communities "assume some of the research burden." While MIT's Richard Lindzen stressed the necessity of prioritizing data collection efforts and complained that EOS was not focused on answering specific questions, Michael McCracken of the U.S. Global Change Research Program defended EOS as a very important contribution to observations. Asked whether the scientific community did not need observations from EOS, Michaels said that was absolutely not true, and Balling added that it was "inconceivable to think how we could better generate data" than with EOS. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) questioned whether EOS was designed with any preconceived ideas of scientific results. Watson said no, noting that NASA's policy was to make the data available to all scientists for analysis. Michaels stated that the peer-review process would assure that "in the long run, the truth will come out." Lindzen concurred. "I stand as an example that government support does not determine scientific position," he said. "I'm hearing from all of you...that more data is better than no data," Chairman Walker concluded, but he stressed the "need to interpret the data." If the cost of observations could be reduced, he suggested, more money could be devoted to analysis. Such sentiments may be influential if his committee drafts NASA authorizing legislation this year. ############### From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Mar 21 09:13:16 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13529; Thu, 21 Mar 96 09:13:14 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa17473; 21 Mar 96 9:13 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28160; Thu, 21 Mar 96 06:04:40 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13709; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 07:05:16 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 07:05:16 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #43 - Gibbons on FY97 R&D Budget (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR OSTP Director John Gibbons on FY 1997 R&D Budget Request "I'll get right to be bottom line. The President's FY 97 budget marks the fourth consecutive year that President Clinton has called for increases in science, technology, and education investments -- investments we need to carry us into the 21st century. This budget delivers on President Clinton's commitment to maintain critical science and technology investments as a priority while balancing the budget." -- John Gibbons, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology With this introduction, John Gibbons introduced the Clinton Administration's FY 1997 budget request for science and technology programs at a March 19 briefing. And while most of his briefing was a review of the S&T highlights of the budget request, Gibbons was blunt in his appraisal of congressional actions during last year, stating "With this budget, [the President] is saying again that he will not back down in the face of myopic Congressional proposals to slash R&D." Over-all research funding would increase by 2%, or $1,229 million, to $72,679 million under the administration's budget request. (Since final appropriations have not yet been signed for some R&D agencies, the FY 1996 basis represents the administration's best approximation.) Basic research funding would increase by 2%, or $268 million, to $14,327 million. Applied research funding would increase by 4%, or $622 million, to $14,872 million. Over-all civilian R&D would increase by 3%, or $1,057 million, to $34,404 million. Over-all defense R&D would increase 0.005%, or $172 million, to $38,275 million. Gibbons noted that the ratio between civilian and defense R&D has not changed much in this budget request. R&D support to universities would increase by 1%, or $155 million, to $12,728 million. Merit or peer reviewed R&D program funding would increase by 6%, or $1,246 million, to $22,406 million. Over-all spending on facilities would increase by 45% under this budget request. It was explained that this is because of a change in the way that facilities would be financed, with the requested $1,742 million being used to provide more up-front funding for facilities such as the DOE's RHIC and B-Factory. Aircraft carriers are now funded this way, as was as the replacement of a major radio antenna at the Green Bank, WVA observatory. Upcoming issues of FYI will provide details on the administration's FY 1997 budget request for NSF, NASA, and the Department of Energy. See FYI #42 for the FY 1997 NIST budget request. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Mar 22 16:59:12 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19581; Fri, 22 Mar 96 16:58:59 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa21496; 22 Mar 96 16:58 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06588; Fri, 22 Mar 96 12:43:40 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04466; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:44:17 -0700 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:44:17 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: deb awards for 95 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I have the list of awards from the Div. of Environmental Biology for 1995. If you want an email copy, let me know. jim From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Mar 25 18:21:24 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28028; Mon, 25 Mar 96 18:21:15 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id ab25536; 25 Mar 96 18:20 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21959; Mon, 25 Mar 96 12:51:20 PST Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:51:18 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: USGS Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR I'm excerpting this for the newsletter, but I thought it would be of interest while still "fresh." ---------- Forwarded message ---------- _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: FY 97 Science Budget press release From: Trudy Harlow Date: 3/18/96 2:03 PM EMBARGOED UNTIL 3:30 PM EST MARCH 19. USGS Donovan Kelly 703-648-4460 NBS Trudy Harlow 202-482-3048 For Release: March 19, 1996 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FY 97 BUDGET EXPANDS SCIENTIFIC MISSION The fiscal year 1997 budget request for the U.S. Geological Survey of $746.4 million provides a net increase of $15.9 million over the FY 1996 Conference level approved under the Continuing Resolution. Specific components of the increase include $6.8 million to meet the high-priority science needs of Interior land managers, an expanded Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit System, and increased access to natural resources information; $2 million to cover residual costs for unemployment and workers compensation payments for former employees of the U.S. Bureau of Mines; and $5 million to support the use of classified data by civilian agencies and scientists for environmental applications. "The USGS is evolving rapidly to become not only the consolidated science agency for the Department of the Interior, but also the national earth and environmental science agency entrusted to provide sound and objective science to decisionmakers in more than 1,200 local, State, and Federal natural resource management organizations across the country," said USGS Director Gordon Eaton. "Most important, we are building a new USGS to better serve every citizen, every day, in every state," Dr. Eaton said. "That is a bold claim, perhaps, but one I think we can demonstrate. The proof is in our basic work with water, energy, and mineral resources to our expanded role with biological resources to our efforts at reducing the risk from hazards such as earthquakes, floods, wildland fires, landslides, water pollution and the emergence and spread of wildlife diseases." The USGS budget for FY 1997 also includes about $10 million in offsetting decreases and increases. As part of the continuing efforts to implement Phase II of the reinventing government effort, the USGS is eliminating geothermal assessment activities (-$2.2 million), streamlining information dissemination services (-$2.2 million), eliminating low-priority data collection and analysis work on water resources (-$1.1 million), and eliminating Federal funding for grants to the Water Resources Research Institutes (-$4.5 million). The savings realized from these program changes would be applied to strengthen the Federal/State Cooperative Program to address national water issues ($4.5 million) and to support four new program directions involving urban hazards ($1 million), drinking water and public health ($1.4 million), a digital national atlas ($1 million), and a framework for geospatial data ($2 million). The budget reflects an increase over previous years as programs of the former National Biological Service are absorbed within the USGS, as well as part of the mineral information program of the former U.S. Bureau of Mines. The "new" USGS will begin FY97 with 10,700 employees working on projects involving water, earth and natural resources in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. * * * USGS * * * Karen R. King USGS Public Affairs Office (703) 648-4460 From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Mar 25 18:25:13 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28042; Mon, 25 Mar 96 18:25:11 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id ab26691; 25 Mar 96 18:25 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22796; Mon, 25 Mar 96 15:08:00 PST Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 15:07:59 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Network web stats Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR You may be interested in taking a look at the new usage figures for the Network Office web site at "http://lternet.edu/about/usage.htm". Included is a breakout of the number of times users have accessed individual LTER sites. As soon as the new version of the software we've chosen is available, we'll display this information in a table format. Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Mar 25 21:40:04 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA28394; Mon, 25 Mar 96 21:40:02 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa11819; 25 Mar 96 21:39 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23711; Mon, 25 Mar 96 18:23:28 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA11942; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:24:07 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:24:07 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #48 - Multidisciplinary NSF funding Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FY 1997 NSF Request: Multidisciplinary Activities Subactivity The National Science Foundation budget request for the Multidisciplinary Activity Subactivity states: "The FY 1997 Budget Request for the Multidisciplinary Activities Subactivity is $31.50 million, an increase of $1.50 million, or 5.0% over the FY 1996 Estimate of $30.00 million." "The mission of the Multidisciplinary Activities Subactivity is to drive, facilitate and support research and education opportunities that cross traditional disciplinary areas and organizational boundaries. These activities may span two or more of the MPS [Mathematical and Physical Sciences] Subactivities, and/or involve other NSF activities or public and private partners outside the Foundation. Another goal of the Subactivity is to help establish new operational paradigms for fostering and supporting research more effectively. "To accomplish this, the Subactivity encourages and supports proposals of a multidisciplinary nature. It serves as a co-operative resource tightly linked to the other MPS Subactivities with regard to program and resource management, and as an interface between MPS and other NSF activities on multidisciplinary efforts. For example, the Subactivity leads the NSF initiative in optical science and engineering (OS&E) and has fostered links between Mathematical and Physical Sciences researchers and industry through the Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) program." "The FY 1997 Budget request is $31.50 million, an increase of $1.50 million. Important thrusts include support of new multidisciplinary research areas, such as molecular-level environmental science, nanoscience and engineering, and the interface between the mathematical and physical sciences and the biological sciences. Continuation of ongoing activities include the following efforts: "$5.0 million for optical science and engineering (OS&E). "$5.0 million for GOALI. "$1.0 million for Grand Challenge Applications, where the MPS Activity works in partnership with the Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Activity, in an effort to help strengthen these linkages." ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Mar 30 10:06:00 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18973; Sat, 30 Mar 96 10:05:59 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa07857; 30 Mar 96 10:05 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10369; Sat, 30 Mar 96 07:01:41 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA10200; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:02:23 -0700 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:02:23 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #57 - NSF Request: Polar Programs (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FY 1997 NSF Request: U.S. Polar Programs The National Science Foundation budget request states: "The FY 1997 Budget Request for U.S. Polar Programs is $226.0 million, an increase of $9.0 million, or 4.1%, over the FY 1996 Estimate of $217.0 million. The over-all U.S. Polar Programs budget request of $226.0 million is distributed as follows (FY 1996 Estimate/FY 1997 Request): U.S. Arctic Research Program $26.36/29.10 million U.S. Antarctic Research Grants Program $28.00/$29.10 million Science Support $40.66/$42.62 million Operations/Logistics $121.98/$125.18 million The Polar Program request has two Activities: U.S. Polar Research Programs and U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support Activities. The U.S. Polar Research Programs budget request is $163.40 million, and increase of 5.8% or $9.00 million. This budget "supports both Arctic and Antarctic research. This Arctic support represents part of a larger NSF and federal Arctic effort. Antarctic support represents the role of NSF as manager of the entire federal Antarctic program, including special requirements for operations and science support." Within this request, NSF is seeking the following increases: U.S. Arctic Research Program - 10.4%; U.S. Antarctic Research Grants Program - 3.9%; Operations and Science Support - 5.2%. The U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support Activities budget request is $62.60 million, the same amount as the current budget. The request states that this budget "funds logistics provided by the Department of Defense that contribute to the U.S. presence in Antarctica." The foundation's FY 1997 Major Research Equipment budget request includes safety and environmental improvements at the South Pole. See FYI #58 for information on this budget request. The NSF submission to Congress makes no reference to questions raised by the FY 1996 VA/HUD appropriations reports on the future of Antarctic operations (see 1995 FYI #131 and 167.) ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Mar 30 10:06:26 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18978; Sat, 30 Mar 96 10:06:25 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa07995; 30 Mar 96 10:06 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10373; Sat, 30 Mar 96 07:02:20 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA10214; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:03:02 -0700 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:03:01 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #55 - FY 1997 NSF Request: Education & Human Resources (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FY 1997 NSF Request: Education and Human Resources Below is a summary of the FY 1997 NSF budget request for the Education and Human Resources Activity. According to the request: "The FY 1997 Budget Request for Education and Human Resources (EHR) is $619.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million, or 3.3 percent, over the FY 1996 Estimate of $599.0 million." EHR contains seven components. Details of the request for each subactivity are highlighted below, with quotes taken from the budget request document: EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM REFORM: The request is "$101.85 million, an increase of $6.50 million, or 6.8 percent, over the FY 1996 estimate of $95.35 million." The goal is "systemic reform of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education, particularly at the Pre K-12 level, across the nation." Programs include Statewide, Urban, and Rural Systemic Initiatives. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH (EPSCoR): The request is "$35.91 million, unchanged from the FY 1996 Estimate." The EPSCoR request "will enable NSF to continue supporting improvements in the academic research competitiveness of the 19 participating jurisdictions. This includes: multi-year EPSCoR awards at up to $1.50 million per year; 12- to 24-month EPSCoR grants in support of leading edge research, knowledge transfer, and human resource development; and co-funding of proposals with the Foundation's research activities as a means of transitioning EPSCoR researchers and institutions into the NSF's ongoing research programs." ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND INFORMAL EDUCATION: The request is "$190.15 million, a decrease of $4.0 million, or 2.1 percent, from the FY 1996 Estimate of $194.15 million." This amount "continues strengthening the infrastructure needed to support systemic reform and promotes adoption and implementation of science and mathematics standards for content, teaching, and assessment. An increase of $5.50 million for Curriculum and Assessment Development is focused on developing state-of-the-art assessments of student learning that can be used to gauge the impact of systemic initiatives, as well as on improvements in secondary-level technology education to prepare students more effectively for the high-technology workplace. A newly configured Teacher and Student Development effort...receives a modest increase of $500,000.... The Informal Science Education program declines by $10.0 million with reduced NSF support for museum and media activities, the balance to be made up through ISE's extensive leveraging of funds from corporate and other sponsors." UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: The request is "$92.43 million, an increase of $9.0 million or 10.8 percent, over the FY 1996 Estimate of $83.43 million.... The FY 1997 increase of $9.0 million will allow expansion of a major NSF-wide initiative to promote comprehensive, institution-wide reform in undergraduate [science, mathematics, engineering and technology] education, a continued focus on teacher preparation, community college activities, and preparation of all students for the technology-based workplace of the future." Curriculum and Laboratory Development would receive $65.60 million, while Teacher and Faculty Development would get $26.83 million. GRADUATE EDUCATION: The request is "$74.29 million, an increase of $7.50 million, or 11.2 percent, over the FY 1996 Estimate of $66.79 million." The Subactivity uses both fellowships and traineeships to develop "a diverse pool of individuals...who meet the educational, scientific and technological needs of the nation." The $7.50 million increase "will enhance all programs in Graduate Education and allow initiation of a new postdoctoral program.... The Graduate Fellowships program will increase by $2.0 million in FY 1997 to a total of $55.79 million.... Graduate Research Traineeships will increase by $4.0 million to a total of $17.0 million, permitting new traineeship awards.... $1.50 million will support a new science education postdoctoral program for the production of Pre K-12 and undergraduate level professionals. Approximately 25 fellowships will be awarded." HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT: The request is "$73.80 million, a decrease of $1.0 million, or 1.3 percent, from the FY 1996 Estimate of $74.80 million." This subactivity "supports systemic and comprehensive activities to broaden the participation of groups that are educationally underserved in the fields of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET)," and programs include Precollege Education, Comprehensive Partnerships for Minority Student Achievement, Undergraduate Student Support, Alliances for Minority Participation, Minority Research Centers of Excellence, Model Institutions for Excellence, Research Improvement in Minority Institutions, Program for Women and Girls, and Program for Persons with Disabilities. RESEARCH, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION: The request is "$50.57 million, an increase of $2.0 million, or 4.1 percent, over the FY 1996 Estimate of $48.57 million." Within the request, "Research remains constant at the FY 1996 level of $13.03 million.... Evaluation will increase $3.0 million to a total of $13.27 million." This program "will encompass evaluation and monitoring support of 18 different EHR programs.... Technology will decrease $1.0 million to a total of $24.27 million." ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Mar 31 10:36:54 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21568; Sun, 31 Mar 96 10:36:53 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa16481; 31 Mar 96 10:36 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14131; Sun, 31 Mar 96 07:34:59 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA17387; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 08:35:42 -0700 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 08:35:41 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #54 - FY 1997 NSF Request: Geosciences (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FY 1997 NSF Request: Geosciences Below is a summary of the FY 1997 NSF budget request for the Geosciences activity, which falls under NSF's Research and Related Activities appropriation. According to the request: "The FY 1997 Budget Request for the Geosciences Activity (GEO) is $454.0 million, an increase of $36.0 million, or 8.6 percent, over the FY 1996 Estimate of $418.0 million." The Geosciences Activity contains three components: Atmospheric Sciences, Earth Sciences, and Ocean Sciences. Details of the request for each subactivity follow, with quotes taken from the budget request document: ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES: "The FY 1997 Budget Request for the Atmospheric Sciences Subactivity (ATM) is $153.23 million, an increase of $11.20 million, or 7.9 percent, over the FY 1996 Estimate of $142.03 million." Research in this subactivity "furthers the understanding of weather, climate, and the solar-terrestrial system by expanding the fundamental knowledge of the composition and dynamics of the Earth's atmosphere and geospace environment." The FY 1997 Budget Request includes "$92.06 million for Atmospheric Sciences Research Support which provides funding for individual and group research projects in physical meteorology, large-scale dynamic meteorology, experimental meteorology, climate dynamics, atmospheric chemistry, aeronomy, magnetospheric physics and solar-terrestrial relations." An $8.20 million increase will enable "enhanced support of the interagency U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP) and the National Space Weather Program (NSWP), continued support of disciplinary research and international field programs in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and participation in an NSF-wide instrumentation program." The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) would receive $61.17 million, which includes "an increase of $3.0 million [to] allow NCAR scientists and facilities to participate in the USWRP, NSWP and USGCRP activities, as well as to conduct other disciplinary research." EARTH SCIENCES: "The FY 1997 Budget Request for the Earth Sciences Subactivity (EAR) is $95.90 million, an increase of $10.50 million, or 12.3 percent, over the FY 1996 Estimate of $85.40 million." This subactivity "supports research on the structure, composition, and history of Earth and its processes." The request includes "$58.80 million for Earth Sciences Project Support, which funds individual and small group research proposals in all disciplines of the Earth Sciences and in interdisciplinary areas such as environmental geochemistry and biogeochemistry, active tectonics, and cooperative studies of Earth's deep interior.... An increase of $2.26 million in FY 1997 will provide enhanced support for interdisciplinary projects on environmental geochemistry and biogeochemistry and for hydrologic sciences. Other disciplinary research programs will receive small increases to maintain current levels of effort. Additional support will be provided for undergraduate research and postdoctoral fellowships." Instrumentation and Facilities would receive $27.70 million, to support "shared research facilities and university instrumentation.... An increase of $6.50 million includes $4.50 million for enhanced support for the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) for a global seismic network and its associated data management system." $9.40 million would go to the "Continental Dynamics Program, which supports large coordinated multidisciplinary and multi-institutional field projects on the continents." The Earth Science request includes "$10.90 million for research on fundamental earthquake studies, to sustain this element of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program." OCEAN SCIENCES: "The FY 1997 Budget Request for the Ocean Sciences Subactivity (OCE) is $204.87 million, an increase of $14.30 million, or 7.5 percent, over the FY 1996 Estimate of $190.57 million." This subactivity "supports research to improve understanding of both coastal seas and deep ocean basins, including the sea floor, and the facilities required to gain access to these environments." The request includes "$110.18 million for Ocean Sciences Research Support, which includes programs in physical oceanography, chemical oceanography, marine geology and geophysics, biological oceanography, oceanographic technology, and interdisciplinary studies.... An increase of $7.16 million in FY 1997 will provide support for the interdisciplinary Coastal Ocean Processes Program...; the Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics program...; the Earth System History program...; and for increased core support to investigator-initiated basic research." Oceanographic Centers and Facilities would receive $53.65 million, an increase of $5.95 million, of which "over $4 million...will be allocated for an NSF-wide instrumentation program. The remainder will support continued ship and submersible operations, maintenance, and technical support, as well as instrumentation improvements and coordination functions." The multinational Ocean Drilling Program would receive $41.04 million, an increase of $1.19 million, which "will maintain the current level of effort for the program as operating costs increase." ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Apr 1 13:36:05 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA25156; Mon, 1 Apr 96 13:35:48 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa01111; 1 Apr 96 13:34 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19250; Mon, 1 Apr 96 10:25:14 PST Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:25:14 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: cDybas@nsf.gov, sCollins@nsf.gov Subject: Smithsonian Seminar Series--D. Tilman Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Smithsonian Institution and Resources for the Future are pleased to invite you to the April offering in the Ecology and Economics Seminar Series "Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Are We Spending Our Children's Ecological Capital? Presenter: G. David Tilman, University of Minnesota Respondent: Michael A. Toman, Resources for the Future Monday, April 8, 1996 (12:00 - 2:00 p.m.) Hirshhorn Museum, Marion & Gustave Ring Auditorium 7th Street and Independence Avenue, S.W. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Does higher biological diversity contribute to the sustainability and productivity of ecosystems? The concept may be an old one dating back to Charles Darwin in Origin of Species and Charles Elton in 1958 but a recent study by David Tilman, David Wedin and Johannes Knops points to a stronger "ecological `value' for biodiversity." David Tilman will discuss his recent study and how biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are important to our future. Dr. G. David Tilman is a Professor of Ecology and the Director of Cedar Creek Natural History Area at the University of Minnesota, where he has been on the faculty since 1976. His research interests include the mechanisms of interspecific competition, the processes allowing the maintenance of biodiversity, the impacts of biodiversity on population and ecosystem stability and functioning, the causes of successional dynamics, and mathematical theory related to these issues. He has published two books, edited a third and is an author of more than 90 scientific papers. Dr. Tilman earned his BS (1971) and Ph.D. (1976) in Zoology from the University of Michigan. Dr. Michael A. Toman is a Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future which he joined in 1981. His areas of specialty include energy economics, public utility economics and regulation, climate change, environmental policy design and management (with special emphasis on Central and eastern Europe), and sustainable development. He is the author or coauthor of three books and over thirty scholarly articles on a variety of topics related to natural resources and the environment, as well as a number of writings for general audiences. Dr. Toman received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Rochester. All seminars are free and open to the public. No RSVP necessary. Unfortunately, no food is allowed in this auditorium. If you have any questions please contact Sarah Boren (Tel: 202-357-4282 Fax: 202-786-2304 Email: sab@ic.si.edu). If you are interested in subscribing to our electronic discussion group, simply email to LISTSERV@SIVM.SI.EDU; leave the subject line blank and in the body of the message type: SUBSCRIBE SIRFF-L YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME This seminar series would not be possible without the generous support of the Winslow Foundation. Special Appeal: In order to save on unnessary postage and labor, please provide us with your email address (preferable) or fax number for distribution of future seminar announcements. Directions: By Metro: go to the L'Enfant stop; exit on the 7th Street/Smithsonian side; at top of escalators head norht on 7th Street; the Hirshhorn Museum will be on the northwest corner of 7th Street and Independence Avenue. By Taxi: go to the Hirshhorn Museum on 7th Street and Independence Avenue, S.W. By Car: this is not recommended due to lack of parking. PLEASE NOTE: This seminar is based on recent research by Dr. Tilman. If you would like to review his work please see below for references. 1) Tilman, David, David Wedin, and Johannes Knops. 1995. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379(6567):718-720. 2) Kareiva, Peter. 1995. Diversity and sustainability on the prairie. Nature 379(6567):673-674. 3) Yoon, Carol Kaesuk. 1995. Ecosystem's productivity rises with diversity of its species. The New York Times, March 5, 1996, p. C4. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 08:26:48 MST From: Loyal_Mehrhoff@mail.fws.gov To: bene@straylight.tamu.edu Subject: Re: a test and a request? Message-ID: <9603018283.AA828380661@mail.fws.gov> Received. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: a test and a request? Author: bene@straylight.tamu.edu at 9de~intr Date: 3/29/96 7:36 AM BENE claims that I am subscribed to the listserve, yet I have gotten no mail from bene for over 6 weeks, despite repeated attmpts to discover the problem. I would like to know whether the bene list at least receives mail when I send it. If you receive this, would you please send me a note privately (not to the list--I'll never see it!)? So that I don't get a hundred replies, how about if only people whose family names begin with the letters M through T send a reply to me at LCORN@CRS.LOC.GOV. If a list administrator reads this, please contact me. I have sent 2 messages to the server in the last few weeks, and have received no reply. Or is the list moribund? Thank you. You may now turn to your regular programming.... Lynne Corn ------------------------------ End of BENE Digest 481 ********************** From smartin@lternet.edu Fri Apr 5 17:55:06 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16192; Fri, 5 Apr 96 17:55:05 EST Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa29404; 5 Apr 96 17:55 EST Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24614; Fri, 5 Apr 96 14:49:04 PST Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:49:03 -0800 (PST) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: lmerpi@lternet.edu Subject: NCEAS funded proposal list Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR You may be interested in seeing a list of the proposals funded to date by the National Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis (NCEAS), attached below. More information is available at the Center's web site: http://www.ceas.ucsb.edu/ I'm told that a list of funded proposals will soon be posted at that location, but the information below is not presently there. NCEAS' home page is also accessible via the LTER home page under the National Science Foundation on the Related Resources page: http://lternet.edu/about/research/res_rsrc.htm Stephanie Martin LTER Network Office >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Current NCEAS Funded Projects To Date Turchin & Murdoch Working Group Temporal Variability of Populations Rex & Strong 3/30/96-4/3/96 Workshop Deep-Sea Biodiversity Turner & Dale 5/20/96-5/22/96 Workshop Ecology of Big Disturbances Roughgarden 5/29/96-6/1/96 Workshop Ecological Theory into Economic Theory Chapin & Sala 6/2/96-6/5/96 Workshop Future Biodiversity of Major Biomes Costanza 6/17/96-6/21/96 Workshop Valuation of Global Ecosystem Services Pace & Groffman Workshop Environmental Problems as Stimuli for Ecosystem Science Boring & AERC Workshop Ecosystem Management for Private Lands Walker & Jones Workshop Circumpolar Comparison of Tundra Response to Temperature Manipulation: A Synthesis of International Tundra Experiment Data Cornell & Hawkins 6/1/96-6/9/96 Working Group 9/14/96-9/28/96 Predators, Pathogens, and Parasitoids as Mortality Agents in Pytophagous Insect Populations Stine & Baker Working Group Investigating Alternative Land Use/Habitat Conservation Strategies Using GIS and Optimization Modeling Walker, B Workshop Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems: A Synthesis Gareth Russell Postdoc New Tools for Analysis of Population and Community Dynamics Jim Kitchell 1/97 - 6/97 Sabbatical Funded Proposals from the December 31, 1995 Call for Proposals Kathryn Cottingham Postdoc Early Warning of Discontinuous Changes in Ecosystem State: Myth, Reality, or Somewhere In Between? Edith Allen 4/19/96-4/21/96 Workshop Developing the Conceptual Basis for Restoration Biology Robert Jackson Workshop Towards an Explicit Representation of Root Distributions in Global Models Tony Ives & Thomas Frost Working Group Intrinsic and Extrinsic Variability in Community Dynamics Fiorenza Micheli Postdoc Joint Effects of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Forces on the Structure and Dynamics of Estuarine and Coastal Marine Communities: Interactions Between Nutrient Inputs and Fisheries Exploitation Camille Parmesan Postdoc Assessing Effects of Global Change by Geographical Analysis of Population-Level Persistence Data Craig Osenberg Workshop Meta-Analysis, Interaction Strength and Effect Size: Application of Biological Models to the Synthesis of Experimental Data Robert Waide & Michael Willig Working Group An Analysis of the Relationship Between Productivity and Diversity Using Experimental Results from the Long-Term Ecological Research Network From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Apr 8 13:45:25 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA23144; Mon, 8 Apr 96 13:45:19 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa09434; 8 Apr 96 13:45 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09415; Mon, 8 Apr 96 10:37:59 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26685; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:38:46 -0600 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:38:46 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, dman@lternet.edu, exec@lternet.edu Subject: May 1 LTER dial-up changes (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Status: OR From=20Jim Gosz, Jerry Franklin and John Vande Castle. With changes in Internet use, and presence of regional and local Internet Service Providers (ISP), we will be moving the toll-free access of the LTER= =20 "800" dial-up number to a standard phone call. The previous number=20 (800-337 5837) will be moved/changed to the existing local number of=20 206-543 2115 on May 1st. This will not affect sites using their own=20 access to the LTER terminal server (i.e. those with their own 800# or ISP). The LTER Network Office can work with sites requiring any further=20 assistance to obtain local Internet service. Some information is=20 appended below. With the availability of local ISPs, the toll free-access has become a=20 "fairness" issue and increasly difficult to manage (most use is by few=20 users/sites and we have run into some inappropriate use (non-LTER=20 affiliation). The cost of this use continues to exceed the projected=20 funding and further use would need to come from the LTER "Participant=20 Support" which funds LTER meetings and workshops. We can discuss this issue at the CC meeting at Konza. _________________________Appended Message__________________________ From=20RNottrott@lternet.edu Mon Apr 08 10:13:39 1996 Subject: LTER Site Internet Connectivity Options This paper is maintained on http://LTERnet.edu/im/tech/netoptn.htm. Check there for the version that is up-to-date and has all the formatting.=20 (This paper evolved from a hand-out to participants of the LTER Coordinatin= g Meeting, Virginia Coast, April 18, 1995. The original document is availabl= e on gopher at LTERnet.edu, Basic Documentation)=20 The options outlined below are to provide LTER site connectivity and individual field connectivity using dial-up PPP (Poin-to-Point Protocol) or SLIP (Serial Line IP) connections. The reason to use nothing less than PPP or SLIP is that they will allow you to use all the standard Internet applications (Mosaic, FTP, Gopher, ODBC database server access, and many more) that you need to exchange data and information with your own site, other LTER sites, and beyond. Ordinary dial-up connections with programs such as Procomm do not support that functionality. On your PC end, PPP capability can be established using the LTERnet connectivity pack or simila= r products that may be available from Internet providers. Macintoshes and Microsoft Windows 95 have built-in PPP support. Just make sure that the "other end", the end you dial up, also has PPP/SLIP support.=20 The options below are to 1) get your own LTER site 800 number for access to LTERnet, 2) connect to LTERnet by long-distance dial-up, 3) get an account with a Internet provider, 4) use a workstation with SLIP/PPP capability located at your campus or main administrative site, or 5) use a terminal server/router at your campus or main administrative site. 1) Your LTER site can get its own 800 number for access to LTERnet.=20 Site personnel can then connect as usual, using the site's 800 number. The site, rather than the Network Office, gets the invoice and pays the bill. Cost: Approx. $8/hour for 800 number access Advantages:=20 - Full standard Internet connection (SLIP/PPP)=20 - Pre-configured software package available (LTERnet Connectivity Pack)=20 How to?=20 =B7 Call Beverly Harmon, phone 1-800-941-4949 or 206-624-9911. Beverly is w= ith Frontier, the company that provided 1-800-FER-LTER access to LTERnet in the past. =B7 Identify yourself as an LTER site representative or individual requesti= ng an 800 number for access to LTERnet at phone number 206-543-2115. ******************************************* =B7 Also tell Beverly that you work with Rudolf Nottrott at the Network Office, University of Washington, phone 206-543-8492.=20 Or=20 =B7 Give the name of your LTER site contact person (data manager?) to Rudol= f Nottrott. Beverly Harmon of Frontier will then call you back to set up individual accounts for your site personnel and arrange for site billing.= =20 In any case, you'll have to fill in and FAX a few forms, but this should be straightforward. Caveat Emptor: None! You get what you have already been using. =20 2) Dial LTERnet via a direct call to 206-543-2115.=20 You can always call LTERnet directly anytime, long-distance or local if you are in the Seattle area. Everything works as with the 800 number, except that you have to pay the phone charges like any other phone call (you incur the cost of the phone connect charges on your own private phone bill or car= d). 3) Use a local or "near distance" Internet provider (provider list appende= d) If your main administrative site is a university, chances are that your Computing and Communication Department provides SLIP or PPP access at no cost or a very low cost. Check this possibility first. Lists of commercial Internet providers: =20 The Internet Society provides a comprehensive list at http://www.isoc.org/~bgreene/nsp-index.html. A somewhat dated list is available at http://www.pdial.com/public-access/pdial, but it=92s worth checking because many of the provider addresses=20 Cost: Varies widely but is often on the order of $20/month/account, plus an= y phone connect charges. As an example, full Internet access in Seattle can be had for about $10/month. Caveat Emptor: Make sure you get PPP or SLIP access for full standard Internet functionality; other services may range widely, incl. e-mail, shell, news, etc., but if you get full Internet connectivity through SLIP/PPP, you won=92t need all the extra services because you can use those= at your home institution or those at LTERnet.=20 The three biggest so-called on-line services, Compuserve, America On-line and Prodigy are now positioning themselves as "also Internet providers". However, so far only Compuserve says it has introduced a full standard dial-up SLIP/PPP access (announced on 10 April 1995); Compuserve provide free-of charge the SPRY Inc. (of Seattle) Mosaic package, a full Internet connection using the PPP that is open to users of any operating system or platform. Beware that the main interest of these companies is to sell you "information", rather than be a plain Internet access provider. I have checked out Compuserve for prices only: Cost (as per Compuserve Customer Service, 1-800-848-8990, http://www.compuserve.com/):=20 $10/month/user flat fee, which includes 5 hours free connect time, $3/hour connect time,=20 $6/hour for use of their 800 number (if you can use one of their local numbers you wouldn't have to pay for this)=20 Also Check: AT&T=92s announced Worldnet: http://www.att.com/worldnet/wis/index.html 4) If you have a workstation with SLIP/PPP capability (built into Sun's Solaris 2.4) located at your campus or main administrative site, and if tha= t workstation is directly connected to the Internet, then you can connect a modem/phone line to each serial port (usually two) of the workstation and call that modem; this would likely be a local or near-distance call from your site.=20 Cost: If you already have a Sun workstation running Solaris, as many sites do, this would just be the cost for the modems and the phone lines, pilus phone connect charges. 5) By a terminal server/router, such as an Cisco 2509 (for up to eight terminals), or similar device e.g. from Apex Use this server in tandem with a workstation (such as a Sparc, for password authentication) to allow up to eight simultaneous dial-in sessions. (We use a similar setup at the Network Office).=20 Cost: $2,700 for Cisco 2509 software and hardware, there is additional setu= p effort involved to install the "public domain" software for password authentication (tacacs).=20 Modems and phone lines (up to eight if you want). Any phone connect charges for dial up sessions Caveat Emptor: There is quite a bit of initial set-up systems administratio= n involved.=20 Advantages: The Cisco routers also have serial ports ("WAN ports") for use with a so-called DSU/CSU and high-speed phone lines, such as T1 or 56 KB/s. Using this feature, the routers could be used at a field station, with a leased phone line, to set up a permanent Internet connection to the field.= =20 Further Sources: http://cio.cisco.com/=20 From JMB@lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu Thu Apr 18 09:56:38 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27627; Thu, 18 Apr 96 09:56:37 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa19232; 18 Apr 96 9:56 EDT Received: from mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (grunt.ksu.ksu.edu) by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21947; Thu, 18 Apr 96 06:48:45 PDT Received: from lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu (lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu [129.130.110.5]) by mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA00520; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:49:36 -0500 Received: from LTER-KONZA/SpoolDir by lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu (Mercury 1.21); 18 Apr 96 08:49:17 GMT+11 Received: from SpoolDir by LTER-KONZA (Mercury 1.21); 18 Apr 96 08:49:05 GMT+11 From: "John M. Briggs" Organization: KONZA-LTER To: fswanson@lternet.edu, jhobbie@lupine.mbl.edu, jobrien@lternet.edu, jyarie@lternet.edu, preich@forestry.umn.edu, billl@bouteloua.cnr.colostate.edu, coleman@sparc.ecology.uga.edu, cdriscoll@lternet.edu, dfoster@lternet.edu, lhuennek@nmsu.edu, kgross@kbs.msu.edu, r_waide@upr1.upr.clu.edu, Mike.Willig@lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu, wharton@maxey.unr.edu, jgosz@salado.unm.edu, jerry@lternet.washington.edu, John.Vande.Castle@lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu, smartin@lternet.edu, Rudolf.Nottrott@lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu, scollins@nsf.gov, jmagnuson@lternet.edu, tims@culter.colorado.edu, rsmith@lternet.edu, wfraser@lternet.edu, bmilne@sevilleta.unm.edu, bhayden@lternet.edu, aknapp@lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu, John.Briggs@lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu, pi@lternet.edu Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:49:04 CDT Subject: Logistics for CC Meeting X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-Id: Priority: A Status: OR TO:LTER CC & EC Participants From: John M. Briggs and Alan Knapp (KNZ) RE: Logistics for CC meeting FINAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR CC MEETING For those driving to Manhattan, KS, by now you should have received a map of the town and the campus. If not, let me know and I will you send one as soon as possible. For those flying into Manhattan, we will provide transportation from the airport to the motel. There is only one gate, one airline, and one baggage pick-up, thus we are confident we can find you! If no one is there to meet you, phone numbers to call are : (913) 532-6629 (Briggs-work); (913) 539-9215 (Briggs-Home); (913) 532- 7094 (Knapp-work); (913) 537-3385 (Knapp-Home). If you can't get hold of anyone, then simply take a taxi from the airport to the motel. For your information, US-AIR Express (which is the airline you will fly to Manhattan) is in terminal A in Kansas City. If you arrive at another terminal in Kansas City (there are three of them), take "THE RED BUS" to terminal A. The motel is the Super-8. There is no restaurant in the motel, but there is one right next door. In addition, across the street is the Manhattan Town Center Mall which has a food court (typical fast food) and a mexican cafe which has a bar! Applebee's is at the other end of the Town Center. And if you go thru the Town Center you are downtown where there are a few more bars and Harry's Uptown, yet another restaurant. All meetings will be held in the Kansas State University Student Union in room 206. We will provide transportation from the motel to the union. On Wednesday AM, for the EXEC meeting, the rides will leave the motel at 8:00am for an 8:30 start. For Thursday AM and Friday AM, we will leave the motel at 7:30am for an 8:00 start. In all cases, breakfast is on your own (A Village Inn is adjacent to the motel). On Thursday we will have box lunches as a working lunch is on the agenda. Thursday evening will feature a steak dinner or Bison Burgers on Konza Prairie. We will be collecting a small donation (~$5) to cover the beer on Thursday evening. Walter Dodds and Briggs have sampled many beers to make sure that we get a good keg from the local brewery. On Thursday, you will want to wear field clothes to the meeting, as we will leave directly from the meeting for the field. If at all possible, we will witness a burn on Konza, so bring your camera and hope that the weather cooperates. If you want, individuals can participate in lighting the fire! We encourage the wearing of cotton or wool clothing if you are going to be close to the fire. Synthetic clothing and fire do not mix well! Long pants, heavy-type shoes, hats and sun-screen are also recommended. For the weather forecast before you come, check the weather from the Konza- LTER Home Page (http://climate.konza.ksu.edu) but remember the weather changes often, so be prepared. After the field trip, we will eat at Konza Prairie and then we will transport you back to the motel. On Friday, we will provide rides back to the airport. Below are the times I have for everyone's arrival and departure. Please let me know of errors,changes, etc. ASAP. --john AND:Fred Swanson; arriving 24 April, # 5715 at 2:15pm departing 26 April, # 5709 at 4:45pm ARC:John Hobbie; driving from Kansas City, arrive on 24th am. John O'Brien; driving from Lawrence BNZ:John Yarie; arriving 24 April, # 5693 at 4:35pm departing 26 April, # 5700 at 2:30pm CDR:Peter Reich; arriving 24 April, # 5708 at 7:46pm departing 26 April, at 12:06pm CPR:Bill Lauenroth; Driving from CSU CWT:Dave Coleman; arriving 24 April, # 5715 at 2:15pm departing 26 April, # 5700 at 2:30pm HBR:Charles Driscoll; arriving 24 April, # 5708 at 7:45pm departing 26 April, # 5700 at 2:30pm HFR:David Foster; arriving 23 April, # 5708 at 7:45pm departing 26 April, # 5700 at 3:20pm JRN:Laura Huenneke; arriving 24 April, # 5693 at 4:35 departing 26 April, # 5709 at 4:45pm KBS:Kay Gross; driving in from Kansas City, will be in Manhattan, Wed. AM. LUQ:Bob Waide; arriving 23 April, # 5708 at 7:45pm departing 26 April, # 5709 at 4:45pm MCM:Robert Wharton; driving in from Kansas City, will arrive Manhattan, 24th departing Manhattan, 26th 2:00pm for 6:11pm flight from KC. NET:James Gosz; arriving 23 April, # 5708 at 7:45pm departing 26 April, # 5709 at 4:45pm Jerry Franklin; driving in from Kansas City John Vande Castle; arriving 23 April, # 5708 at 7:45pm departing 26 April, # 5709 at 4:45pm Stephanie Martin; arriving 24 April, # 5693 at 4:35pm departing 26 April, # 5709 at 4:45pm Rudolf Nottrott; arriving 24 April, #5708 at 7:45pm departing 26th April, # 5709 at 4:45pm NSF:Scott Collins; driving in from Kansas City NTL:John Magnuson; arriving 24 April, # 5693 at 4:35pm departing 26 April, # 5709 at 4:45pm NWT:Tim Seastedt; arriving 24 April, # 5693 at 4:35pm departing 26 April, # 5709 at 4:45pm PAL:Raymond C. Smith; arriving 24 April, # 5715 at 2:15pm departing 26 April, # 5709 at 4:45pm William (Bill) Fraser; arriving 24 April, # 5708 at 7:45pm departing 26 April, # 5709 at 4:45pm SEV:Bruce Milne; arriving 24 April, # 5708 at 7:45pm departing 26 April, # 5809 at 4:45pm VCR:Bruce Hayden, arriving 23 April, # 5708 at 7:45pm departing 26 April, # 5700 at 2:30pm ============================================================================ John M. Briggs || Voice (913) 532-6629 Division of Biology/Ackert Hall || FAX (913) 532-6653 Kansas State University || Internet jmb@lter-konza.konza.ksu.edu Manhattan, KS 66506-4901 || Bitnet konza@ksuvm.ksu.edu http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/briggs/briggs.html ============================================================================ From scollins@nsf.gov Mon Mar 25 17:51:32 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27979; Mon, 25 Mar 96 17:51:28 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa12855; 25 Mar 96 17:47 EST Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22603; Mon, 25 Mar 96 14:34:37 PST Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA26753 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:35:08 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by xrelay.nsf.gov id AA827804037; Mon, 25 Mar 96 17:32:19 EST Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 17:32:19 EST From: scollins@nsf.gov Message-Id: <9602258278.AA827804037@xrelay.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu, scollins@nsf.gov, jcallaha@nsf.gov Subject: Supplement competition: Money for nothin'... Status: OR Principal investigators: This is a test. I want to announce my plans for an LTER supplement competition with some of the funds that mysteriously remain in the current LTER budget. The plan is to hold a competitive supplement competition with a projected 50% success rate, which, by the way, is much higher than proposals submitted to the core programs. I have a total of $400K that I can award in this competition under the following guidelines. Each site (if interested) will submit only one supplement request under the name(s) of the PI's of the LTER site. The request can be for a maximum of $50,000 including indirect costs. The requests are to be for either/or 1) risky, creative, novel, pathbreaking, and exciting ideas for research (SGER-oid) and/or 2) technology enhancement Clearly these categories are not mutually exclusive. Any proposal that is in the "more of the same" ilk will not be competitive. I will make 8 awards for supplements based on the recommendation of a panel comprised of six to eight program officers here at NSF. Each supplement request will be limited to five text pages for the proposal. Additional pages must include the literature cited, budget pages, budget justification (2 pages max), 1 pager CV's listing five pubs/person, a cumulative conflicts list for the PI's, and current and pending support statements. IMPORTANT: Supplement requests must be in the following format or they will not be considered for funding by the panel of curmudgeons. 1) A maximum of five text pages. 2) One inch margins on left, right, top, and bottom of the pages. We will measure this! 3) Font throughout the five page text of the request must be Arial 12, or equivalent, based on Word for Windows. Any figures or tables you wish to include may be copied on the back side of the five text pages. I am sending out this request without too many other specifics to allow you to be creative. Please send one original with institutional signatures and 9 copies of the supplements directly to me at the following address: Scott L. Collins Division of Environmental Biology, Rm 635 National Science Foundation Arlington, VA 22230 DO NOT SEND THESE TO THE PROPOSAL PROCESSING UNIT AT NSF. The proposal are due here 1 May 1996. We will meet and announce funding decisions within three weeks of this date. Sorry I do not have more funds available this year. However, I very much want the funds currently in the program budget to be spent on the LTER sites. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Apr 27 11:58:56 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08573; Sat, 27 Apr 96 11:58:55 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa17550; 27 Apr 96 11:58 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16235; Sat, 27 Apr 96 08:54:31 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06998; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:55:29 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:55:29 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #68 - Big Science Committee Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 68: April 26, 1996 Science Committee Passes Big Bill At a partisan and often ill-natured meeting on April 24, the House Science Committee rushed to complete work on an FY 1997 authorization bill for many of the programs under its jurisdiction. It often was not a pretty sight as the committee's Republicans and Democrats voted on how $19.7 billion should be spent in the coming year. Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) started the hearing by saying "This committee is serious about its responsibility," and had made the "tough choices." The committee's Democratic members were quick to point out that they had no input in the drafting process, prompting Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) to exclaim, "we're hearing a lot of squealing from the animals." Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) offered his own version of the bill, which was, to no one's surprise, rejected on a straight 21-27 party-line vote. The committee then considered the National Science Foundation portion of the bill. Members would authorize (i.e., give permission to spend, but not actually provide) $3,250 million for NSF in FY 1997. The administration requested $3,325 million; current year funding is $3,220 million. The committee would reauthorize the Academic Research Infrastructure program for $100 million, which NSF wants to terminate. The Education authorization would provide $600 million; current spending is $599 million, $619 million was sought. Research and Related Activities spending would be authorized at $2,340 million; current spending is $2,314 million, $2,472 million was requested. (To compare the NSF request to the committee's bill - "apples-to-apples" - it seems appropriate to add both the Research and Academic Research Infrastructure accounts together, since NSF folded some infrastructure money into the Research account. The total of the administration's request is $2,472 million, compared to the committee bill's total of $2,440 million. Current spending totals $2,414 million.) By a one vote margin, the committee included the word "Engineering" in the foundation's name. On another party line vote, the committee refused to reinstate cuts made in NSF's salary authorization level, and reaffirmed the bill's instruction to NSF to get rid of one of its directorates. During consideration of the NASA portion of the bill, the committee considered an amendment to terminate the space station program, which was defeated by a vote of 11-33. Another amendment to reduce the $1.8 billion station authorization by $100 million also failed by a similar margin. The bill increases the authorization for space science account by $310 million over the administration's request, which Walker said, "when aggregated with Life and Microgravity Research, achieves the number one recommendation of the Augustine Commission - a 20 percent share of the NASA budget" for space science. A committee chart shows that the bill's authorization levels for NASA Space Science and NASA Life and Microgravity Research total $2,665.9 million. The administration request is $2,355.8 million; current spending is $2,521.1 million. The committee bill would offset this increase by a $375 million reduction in Mission to Planet Earth, with the cuts being made in PM-1 and Chem platforms and EOS DIS. Rep. Ralph Hall (D-TX) warned, "insisting on such large cuts may only ensure that this bill never becomes law." The committee bill includes an authorization for NIST's Scientific and Technical Research program. It would increase funding by almost $10 million to $280.6 million. The administration request was $270.7 million; current spending is $259.0 million. NIST's Industrial Technology Services, including its Advanced Technology Program, were not authorized. An amendment to authorize these programs failed on a party line vote. The committee did not include a Department of Energy title in its bill, a last minute decision having been made to pull these provisions because of differences over funding levels. Brown released a table listing anticipated authorization levels for various DOE programs contained in Chairman Walker's original version of the bill. High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics total spending were to be authorized at the requested FY 1997 levels. The Materials Sciences component of the Basic Energy Sciences budget was to have been increased by $20 million over the request. The Fusion Energy Sciences authorization level was to have been cut $55.6 million from the request of $255.6 million, a figure $27.4 million lower than current year spending. Again, note that these authorization levels were NOT included in the bill. A separate DOE bill may be marked up in coming weeks. Chairman Walker plans to introduce this bill, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act, on the House floor in the near future. A floor vote is scheduled on May 9. It is expected that the Senate will not act on this bill, as was the case for a similar bill last year. House action on some appropriations bills is expected by late May. The bottom line: while it is doubtful this bill will ever become law, it gives a clear indication of the direction of science spending in the upcoming fiscal year. There seems to be fairly general agreement about NSF funding. NASA funding is more uneven, Republicans boosting space science and life & microgravity sciences while reducing Mission to Planet Earth spending. NIST's core programs enjoy support, while differences over ATP remain stark. DOE funding remains uncertain. At this point, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, and Materials Science (BES) funding seem to be in general agreement; Fusion Energy Sciences appears to be in some trouble. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Apr 27 11:59:53 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08578; Sat, 27 Apr 96 11:59:52 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa17883; 27 Apr 96 11:59 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16225; Sat, 27 Apr 96 08:51:58 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06973; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:52:57 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:52:57 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: What's New for Apr 26, 1996 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park Friday, 26 Apr 96 Washington, DC 1. THE FY 96 BUDGET WAR IS OVER! SCIENCE WILL NEVER BE THE SAME. Yesterday -- seven months, two government shutdowns, and thirteen continuing resolutions after the start of the 1996 fiscal year -- Congress and the President agreed on a spending bill. Neal Lane, Director of NSF, expressed relief at the outcome, which included an additional $40M for NSF above the level agreed to last fall. He tempered his joy by noting that the House Science Committee approved an FY 97 authorization bill on Wednesday that cuts the President's request for NSF by $75M. Long-term funding prospects are even gloomier (WN 19 Apr 96). Science was not under attack in the FY 96 budget war; it was simply left out of the debate. Scientists who would have choked on the word "lobby" just a few years ago are fast becoming effective grass-roots lobbyists. 2. DOWNSIZING NSF: WALKER AMENDMENT ELIMINATES ONE DIRECTORATE. An amendment to the Omnibus Science Bill, which was reported out of the Science Committee yesterday, requires NSF to eliminate one of its seven directorates. Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) insists it will be left to the NSF to decide which, but most observers think he has Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences in mind. A year ago, Walker singled out SBE for elimination, claiming that research in these areas had become "politically correct" (WN 19 May 95). The bill is expected to go to the House floor on May 9. 3. NSF OR NSEF? BARTON AMENDMENT REQUIRES NSF TO CHANGE ITS NAME. It's been ten years since Congress changed the organic document creating the National Science Foundation to read "science and engineering" instead of "science" everywhere except in the title; now they want to change that too. The amendment to the Omnibus Science Bill, introduced by Joe Barton (R-TX), passed 23-22 following no discernable lines. The only lobbying came from the professional engineering community; no one took it very seriously since the authorization bill is not likely to become law anyway. But if it does, we at WN offer a suggestion: change the name to National Science and Engineering Foundation, and then eliminate the Engineering Directorate to conform to the Walker Amendment. 4. BUT WHERE'S DOE? ONE WHEEL SEEMS TO HAVE COME OFF THE OMNIBUS. Fearing defections in Republican ranks over hefty cuts in energy conservation and fusion, Chairman Walker simply left DOE out of the bill. He expects to have a separate bill for DOE in June. From wharton@maxey.dri.edu Sat Apr 27 12:00:25 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08582; Sat, 27 Apr 96 12:00:24 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa18073; 27 Apr 96 12:00 EDT Received: from archive.ccs.unr.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16248; Sat, 27 Apr 96 08:55:17 PDT Received: from wheeler.maxey.dri.edu by archive.ccs.unr.edu (8.6.13/1.34) id JAA16193; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:02:31 -0700 Received: by wheeler.maxey.dri.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA25786; Sat, 27 Apr 96 08:58:49 PDT Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 08:58:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Wharton X-Sender: wharton@wheeler To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: more on data (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR fyi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 17:11:59 EST From: ppenhale@nsf.gov To: wharton@maxey.dri.edu, scollins@nsf.gov, ppenhale@nsf.gov, ecarpent@nsf.gov Subject: more on data Bob: As you are aware, data policies are a hot topic in the LTER. This topic is also being reviewed in OPP, and we will implement an Oceanographic Data policy very shortly. Basically, each award letter to the PI and to the Institution will contain a statement that the PI must adhere to OPP's data policy. I will send you a copy of this, as an example of our thinking on the subject. While the policy is defined now for Oceanographic Data, we will be working on a general policy for all projects. In OPP's draft "Oceanographic Data Policy", first two section state: "Purpose. 1. This statement updates and revises guidelines to implement Federal data policy by assuring timely submission of high quality oceanographic data to the national data denters for secondary use. Policy. 2. Ocean data collected under Federal sponsorship and identified as appropriate for submission to a national data center are to be made available within a reasonable time as described below." Basically, the idea is that all environmental data collected will be submitted to national data centers as soon as possible, but no later than two years after collection. (Of course, there are exceptions to types of data such as data that take a long time to analyze.) We are applying this two year principle to the PAL LTER, as it goes into its second funding cycle. The MCM LTER should start thinking along the two year time line for core data. I've been having long conversations with the PAL LTER and the below is my current thinking. Can you distribute this message to the rest of the MCM LTERers so they will know what we are thinking. I'll mail you a copy of the OPP data policy under separate cover, as an example. There are not the national data centers for much of the data you are collecting, but the policy is applicable to making data available through your data base. Polly ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: more on data Author: ppenhale at nsf7 Date: 4/26/96 4:40 PM Dear LTER PIs: I'm still thinking about data issues and have had extensive talks with program managers in the Ocean Sciences Division regarding U.S. JGOFS data management protocols. I'd like you to view this policy as a model and we can talk about it when you are in DC. For those of you not coming, you can send comments to me if you wish. I believe that all of you now hold a copy of the draft OPP Policy for Oceanographic data. Please look at page 5, U.S. JGOFS. You will see that this program requires that core data sets be submitted to the Data-Management Office (DMO) within one (1) year of collection. In addition, final versions of Basic Core Measurements (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, etc.) are due to the Data Office in six (6) months. There is an exemption for data which cannot be analyzed readily. The separate document "JGOFS Data Management Protocol" provides additional detail and explanation. The section which is relevant to this message is "PROPRIETARY RIGHTS While recognizing the legitimate rights of data originators to the first use of the data they collect, U.S. JGOFS also encourages the oceanographic community to use data collected by the program, and in particular, believes that data availability should be restricted only in exceptional cases. Data normally becomes publicly available for use without restriction two years after origination. It is expected that all users will properly acknowledge the source of the data. Guideline: Basis Core Measurements will be available to U.S. JGOFS investigators without restriction following submission to the DMO. However, it is expected that published works will cite the originator and will be sent to him or her for prior review. Guideline: All non-Core Measurements will be available to U.S. JGOFS investigators with restriction requested by the PI, such as: can be viewed by all JGOFS PI's, view and use only with consent of originator, use only in collaboration with originator, etc. Guideline: Data will be released to the public domain two years after the data of collection. Before then, all requests from investigators outside the JGOFS program will be referred to the PI unless the DMO has been given explicit permission to distribute the data freely." I'd like you to think about implementing the JGOFS policy to the PAL LTER data management plan. I believe that it is critical to get the hydrographic data available freely within the group in six months. Having a view of the oceanographic setting before analysis of individual data sets should provide a grounding in the environment and should help direct efforts of individual components. As I said, we can discuss this on May 6, or before. Polly From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Apr 27 12:00:42 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08586; Sat, 27 Apr 96 12:00:40 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa18152; 27 Apr 96 12:00 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16258; Sat, 27 Apr 96 08:56:25 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA07040; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:57:24 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:57:24 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #69 - NASA Appropriations Hearing (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 69: April 26, 1996 House Appropriators Consider NASA FY 1997 Budget At an April 25 hearing of the House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin made the surprising request that Congress not provide additional funding for one of the programs under his jurisdiction. The previous day, the House Science Committee passed authorizing legislation that would cut $373.7 million from Mission to Planet Earth in FY 1997, but would provide an additional $310.0 million to NASA's space science programs (see FYI #68.) (The authorizing legislation is intended to provide guidance to the appropriators, who actually control the money.) This action was foreshadowed at an April 17 hearing of the Science Committee's Space Subcommittee, where Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) warned that the spending cuts projected for NASA through the end of the century could "fall disproportionately on space science." At that hearing, Sensenbrenner told members of the space science community, "When we rework the President's budget, you're going to get a far better shake than you've gotten from OMB [the Office of Management and Budget.]" At yesterday's appropriations hearing, Ranking Minority Member Louis Stokes (D-OH) asked what Goldin thought of the authorizers' actions. Goldin argued forcefully for full funding for Mission to Planet Earth, but added that - independent of that consideration - he did not think space science should receive additional funding when NASA was still in the process of determining where that enterprise could be cut and efficiencies made to save money. "I'm not yet satisfied they're where they should be," he said. Goldin's written testimony states that although the space science budget declines, the level of activity does not; the decline is due to the winding down of several programs, including AXAF and Cassini. Goldin addressed the subcommittee with a plea he has made several times recently. "If I could ask one single request," he said, it would be for stability. He said the space agency has "gone through cut after cut, change after change," and needs a pause to consolidate the changes. Goldin supported the Administration's FY 1997 request of $13.8 billion, but he was asked repeatedly about the outyear projections, which show NASA's budget dropping to $11.6 billion by FY 2000. Goldin replied that he did not know how to meet that target and still produce useful results, but was "cautiously optimistic" that he would not have to. He said the projections included a number of uncertainties, and he was working with OMB on revising them. Regardless of future budgets, Goldin stated, "we're going to build the space station no matter what;" NASA would need to put more money into the shuttle; and he intended to ensure strong space and Earth sciences programs. He argued vehemently against a $373.7 million cut to Mission to Planet Earth. A one-time cut of that amount, he said, would mean delaying a number of needed measurements and result in higher future costs, while a cut of that amount each year would require fundamental changes in policy. Earth science for sustainable development "is not a frivolous economic policy," Goldin declared; "the environmental debate in this nation is at a shameful level," and Mission to Planet Earth would provide the needed facts. When questioned about excess Mission to Planet Earth funds carried over from last year, Goldin and NASA officials explained that they had not yet been spent due to permit schedule delays, government furloughs and a series of continuing resolutions. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) asked whether NASA should be planning SIRTF [Space Infrared Telescope Facility] as a new start for the future, given the current budget climate. Goldin replied that SIRTF was NASA's number-one priority in space science. He pointed out that a redesign had reduced its lifecycle costs from $2 billion to $600 million, and hoped he could recommend a "hard start" to Congress in FY 1998. Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) questioned why NASA had singled out the TDRSS [Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System] replacement and New Millennium programs to receive, in FY 1997, full funding through completion. Goldin responded that it would send a signal to industry and contractors that funding would be stable, but there would be no additional funds available for cost overruns. Goldin countered concerns abut cost overruns and Russian participation on the space station by saying that the program had sufficient reserves, and the Russian government had recently reaffirmed its commitment to the project. Asked about criticism of the station by some in the science community, he pointed out that most of the station's research would be in life and microgravity sciences. In addition, it might also be used to calibrate a number of Mission to Planet Earth sensors, and has potential for research into dark matter and antimatter. Praising NASA for its efforts at downsizing, Chairman Lewis regretted that the agency had to compete for funds with housing, veterans' and EPA programs. The subcommittee gave no indication of how closely they would follow the authorizing legislation when they draft their FY 1997 funding bill. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Apr 27 21:32:21 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09449; Sat, 27 Apr 96 21:32:20 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa25657; 27 Apr 96 21:32 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17570; Sat, 27 Apr 96 18:27:00 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09729; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 19:27:59 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 19:27:59 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Science Committee Marks Up NSF Part of Civilian Science Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Subject: Science Committee Marks Up NSF Part of Civilian Science Bill In an often rancorous session, the House Science Committee marked up legislation authorizing appropriations for the National Science Foundation for FY 1997. The NSF title, which is Title I in the Committee's Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996, authorizes a total of $3.25 billion for NSF. This is $75 million below the President's request of $3.325 billion. For Research and Related Activities, the Committee approved a budget of $2.340 billion. This is $132 million below the request. It represents an increase of $26 million or 1% above the level tentatively agreed to by conferees for NSF research activities in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996. In addition to reducing the President's request for Research and Related Activities, the Committee also reduced the requests for Education and Human Resources, Major Research Equipment, and NSF's Salaries and Expenses. The reduction in NSF Salaries and Expenses amounts to a $7 million reduction below the level appropriated for the current year and would likely lead to major disruptions in the operation and management of the Foundation. The Committee used part of these reductions to reinstate the Academic Research Facilities Modernization program which had been proposed by the Administration for termination in FY 1997. The table below provides some additional details on the reductions made by the Committee to the NSF budget request. NSF Accounts FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1997 Estimate Request House Bill Research 2314* 2472 2340 Education 599 619 600 Aca Res Facilities 100 0 100 Maj Res Equipment 70 95 80 Sal and Expenses 127 129 120 Relocation 5 5 5 Inspec General 4 5 5 Total, NSF 3220* 3325 3250 *assumes enactment of Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 1996 which is expected to include an additional $40 million for Research and Related Activities above the level originally agreed to by House and Senate appropriation conferees in November 1995. The bill also includes a number of important technical provisions. For example, the bill limits to 6 the number of scientific directorates the Foundation may have. In addition, the bill includes an amendment offered by Rep. Joe Barton (R-T X), which was agreed to by the vote 23-22, to change the name of the Foundation to the National Science and Engineering Foundation and to change the name of the board to the National Science and Engineering Board. The bill also includes a requirement that the Office of Science and Technology Policy undertake a study of the indirect cost issue. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by Rep. George Brown which would have restored the funding to the levels requested by the President. Rep. Brown's amendment was rejected on a party line vote 21 to 27. Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL) also offered an amendment to restore funding to NSF's salaries and expenses and remove the limitation on the number of directorates. Instead, the Cramer amendment would have had NSF report back to the Committee on reorganization options. The Cramer amendment also lost on a party line vote. The Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act, which will also include an authorization of appropriations for NASA, NOAA, EPA, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction program, and other programs, is scheduled for House floor action on May 9. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Apr 28 17:32:57 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11522; Sun, 28 Apr 96 17:32:56 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa09406; 28 Apr 96 17:32 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19817; Sun, 28 Apr 96 14:29:15 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA15202; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 15:30:11 -0600 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 15:30:11 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: new Exec. Comm. member Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR At the recent CC meeting at Konza, Ray Smith from Palmer LTER was voted in as the new Exec. Comm. member replacing John Hobbie who completed his term at the Konza meeting. Many thanks to John for his dedicated service to the Exec. Comm. We look forward to involving Ray in our many upcoming activities!! Give him a welcome when you have a chance! jim From scollins@nsf.gov Fri May 3 19:47:53 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01166; Fri, 3 May 96 19:47:51 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa07487; 3 May 96 19:47 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA29889; Fri, 3 May 96 16:39:37 PDT Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA70542 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 3 May 1996 16:53:58 -0400 Received: from ccMail by xrelay.nsf.gov (SMTPLINK V2.11 PreRelease 4) id AA831167629; Fri, 03 May 96 16:51:49 EST Date: Fri, 03 May 96 16:51:49 EST From: scollins@nsf.gov Message-Id: <9604038311.AA831167629@xrelay.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Supplements Status: OR Hello everyone. I received supplement requests from 17 sites. As you are all aware, when you receive a grant from NSF you get information that tells you that you should always use the grant number whenever you communicate with NSF. So, for those of you that are making me search all over DEB for your grant number, you automatically get a $10K budget cut. Ha, just kidding. I have distributed the supplements to five program officers here at NSF. We will meet to make funding decisions in 3-4 weeks. Because of prior commitments, the group can not meet until the end of May, at the earliest. I will notify you as soon as I have information about the supplements. Best wishes, Scott From scollins@nsf.gov Sat May 4 16:47:14 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03437; Sat, 4 May 96 16:47:13 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa28535; 4 May 96 16:47 EDT Received: from note1.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA02958; Sat, 4 May 96 13:35:40 PDT Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by note1.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA15107 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Sat, 4 May 1996 16:36:37 -0400 Received: from ccMail by xrelay.nsf.gov (SMTPLINK V2.11 PreRelease 4) id AA831252996; Sat, 04 May 96 16:34:13 EST Date: Sat, 04 May 96 16:34:13 EST From: scollins@nsf.gov Message-Id: <9604048312.AA831252996@xrelay.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu, scollins@nsf.gov Subject: Please distribute to investigators Status: OR As I promised during the CC meeting at Konza, I am distributing a copy of the guidelines for the renewal proposals that I developed for the most recent cohort of LTER sites (KNZ, CPSGSER, AND, PAL, CWT, NTL). These guidelines were also sent to the panelists who evaluated the proposals. Comments are welcome. Our plan is to develop a standard, yet flexible, set of guidelines for future LTER renewal proposals. Also, we are planning to develop standard evaluation criteria and protocols for site visits. More on that later. It is important to realize that these guidelines will evolve over time as technology and the disciplines change. For example, the recent push to make data available over the web is now an evaluation criterion. This criterion could only be added to our criteria once there was a world wide web. This letter contains the formal instructions for the LTER renewal proposals that are due in my office on 1 February 1996. These instructions have been modified slightly from the preliminary message I sent by e-mail on 10 August. The primary addition is a `brag section' in which you can describe various aspects of outreach activities at your site (e.g., High School Programs, tours, educational efforts, etc.). This section is not part of the evaluation so much as an opportunity for you to elaborate on some of the public interest activities that have occurred in association with your site. I have developed the following proposal format because I believe it allows each site to concentrate on scientific activities that are most appropriate and relevant to each site. The core areas are not mentioned explicitly in these guidelines, but given the research history at each site, the core areas may now be considered implicitly rather than explicitly in the research program at each site. You do not have to directly address any of these areas unless you choose to do so. The description below provides the number of text pages for each section. Figures and tables can be copied onto the back of the text pages up to the literature cited. Please, please, please be kind to the reviewers and do not use a font size smaller than 12. This is larger than required in the Grant Proposal Guide, and the GPG is the authority on these proposals, as well. However, the LTER renewal proposals are longer than most proposals, and it is wise not to irritate the reviewers and Program Director with a small font regardless of what the Grant Proposal Guide says you can use. This is simply a request, not a mandate. I hope this information is helpful and not cumbersome. I think that section 2 (below) allows you considerable creative freedom. The primary criteria for evaluation of each proposal will be scientific merit, data management, and past research productivity. Site management is important, but will carry less weight in the evaluation than these other criteria. Also, the preferred organizational format is given in sections below, however, each site should feel free to slightly modify the presentation in the proposal. Remember, however, that a copy of this letter will be provided to all panelists, and they will be asked to evaluate each proposal based on the information requested. So, do your best to make the presentation of this information in your proposal clear to the reviewers. Proposal Contents: Section 1. Up to five text pages. Results from prior support. In addition to the five test pages, list all publications from LTER research during the last six year funding cycle. Please also include a list of data sets from your site that are currently available electronically. Section 2. This is the meat of the proposal which is being allotted 20 pages of text, except for Coweeta and North Temperate Lakes which can use 23 pages of text. Develop and explain the conceptual framework that provides the unifying ecological theme for your site. Next, describe in some detail the long-term experiments, sampling protocols, and monitoring that you are doing and explain how this fits into your conceptual framework. Describe the methods and data analyses so that the quality of these long-term efforts can be critically evaluated by reviewers. In addition, describe the short-term 'mechanistic' type experiments, empirical studies, sampling programs, modeling efforts, etc., that will be conducted. Again, describe the methods and planned analyses in detail and explain how these short-term studies fit into your conceptual framework. Also, relate these efforts to your long-term studies. Finally, briefly outline any regionalization or cross-site efforts that are planned if they are not part of your core program . Given the flat funding scenario, I am most concerned with the long and short-term work on your site, unless you are already funded for regionalization or expansion of efforts. If you are funded for regionalization, then please describe this research in detail. Finally, close this section with a synthesis to tie these activities together. I have selected this format because I believe that an LTER site should be conducting hypothesis-drivin long-term monitoring efforts and long-term experiments. At the same time, I think it is imperative that the sites also conduct mechanistic studies to try to understand long-term dynamics. Clearly, modeling efforts are important, and they may be discussed in detail where appropriate. All of this should have some logical reasoning which is developed in the conceptual framework. In addition, a clearly developed and described conceptual framework provides a mechanism for deciding what to do with your LTER dollars and what not to do with them. Section 3. Literature Cited in Sections 1 and 2. Section 4. Describe in up to two pages of text how you manage your site. How are funding and research decisions made and actions implemented. What efforts are made to encourage non-LTER scientists from your institution or other institutions to use your site as a research platform? Section 5. One of the real strengths of the LTER network is data and information management. Indeed, I believe that the LTER community is on the cutting edge of these activities. Describe in up to three pages of text your data and information management system. How is the data manager involved in the design of research projects? What mechanisms do you employ to get researchers to contribute their data to the LTER database? How quickly are data sets made available to other researchers? What criteria are used to limit or provide access of LTER data sets to other researchers? How often are data sets updated on the WWW? Section 6. This is a short section of up to two pages for a description of outreach efforts on your site. This is a chance to brag about such things as educational outreach, public activities, media attention, etc. What ever you feel is appropriate. Section 7. Budget pages and detailed budget description. Plan for 1 bazillion dollars per year for the next six years. If we do ever get more money, we may be able to crank up the yearly rate. Don't count on it and do not expect funding to increase. Describe cost sharing, other sources of funding, how the LTER funds are leveraged at your site, and what other in-kind services are provided and by whom. Section 8. One pager CVs of core scientists. List only FIVE publications per investigator on the CV, and please make sure that each CV contains a list of research collaborators in the past 48 months and other conflicts of interest. A more helpful approach would be to provide a one-page alphabetical list of all collaborators and conflicts for the PIs and other LTER participants whose CV's appear in the proposal rather than listing these seperately on each CV. Section 9. Current and Pending support of each investigator- typical NSF forms. I look forward to receiving your proposals next February. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Good luck. Sincerely, Scott L. Collins Program Director, Long-term Projects DEB, Rm 635 From smartin@lternet.edu Mon May 6 13:26:03 1996 Received: from mars.itc.Virginia.EDU by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AB01235; Mon, 6 May 96 13:26:01 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa05203; 6 May 96 13:25 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14259; Mon, 6 May 96 10:13:42 PDT Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 10:13:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu Cc: lmerpi@lternet.edu Subject: President Clinton Nominates Jerry Melillo (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 21:35:15 -0400 (EDT) From: John Hobbie To: smartin@lternet.edu Subject: President Clinton Nominates Jerry Melillo (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 03 May 96 17:06:51 From: Pamela Clapp To: laball@hoh.mbl.edu Subject: President Clinton Nominates Jerry Melillo President Clinton Names MBL Scientist Jerry M. Melillo Associate Director for Environment at Office of Science and Technology Policy Woods Hole, MA-President Clinton today announced his intent to nominate Dr. Jerry M. Melillo, a co-director at the Marine Biological Laboratory's Ecosystems Center, located in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, as Associate Director for Environment at the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Melillo has been a research scientist at the MBL's Ecosystems Center for 20 years. He is internationally recognized for his research on nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems and the potential effects of global climate change on function and structure of land ecosystems. He currently is the Vice-Chairman of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, a non-governmental program of several thousand scientists who are working in a coordinated way to study global change. He also is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and works closely with various panels of the National Research Council. He is the author of more than 100 articles and books on natural ecosystems. The Marine Biological Laboratory is an independent scientific institution, founded in 1888, that undertakes the highest level of creative research and education in biology, including the biomedical and environmental sciences. The research of the MBL's Ecosystems Center, which was established at the MBL in 1975, is focused on the study of natural ecosystems. Among the key environmental issues being addressed are: the ecological consequences of global climate change; tropical deforestation and its effects on greenhouse gas fluxes; nitrogen saturation of mid-latitude forests; effects of acid rain on North American lakes; and pollution and habitat destruction in coastal ecosystems of the United States. From smartin@lternet.edu Mon May 6 15:02:49 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA01802; Mon, 6 May 96 15:02:46 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id ac16752; 6 May 96 15:02 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14999; Mon, 6 May 96 11:57:50 PDT Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:57:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: sCollins@nsf.gov, cDybas@nsf.gov Subject: CSCC to close Washington, D.C. office Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR (FYI, Received in regular mail 5/6/96) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Stanley N. Katz, 212/697-1505 DATE: APRIL 3, 1996 Washington, D.C.--The Committee on Scholarly Communication with China (CSCC) will close its Washington, D.C. office next month. The decision was made yesterday at a meeting of the CSCC's Executive Committee and representatives of its sponsoring institutions, the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), the National Academy of Sciences, and the Social Science Research Council. Declining federal and private support for the CSCC's administrative operations prompted the decision to close the Washington office. "The CSCC has made substantial progress in achieving its basic goal: to establish regular, productive interchange between scholars in the two countries," said ACLS President Stanley Katz. "It is time to organize our efforts in a new way." Two of the CSCC's core activities, the National Program for Advanced Study and Research in China, and Chinese Fellowships for Scholarly Development, will be moved to the CSCC's administrative parent, the ACLS, which is located in New York. The CSCC's Executive Committee will continue to oversee these two programs. The CSCC's Beijing office will remain open to facilitate the activities of its sponsors. The CSCC's remaining programs in training and education and its resource center, will be moved to other institutions. The quarterly *CHINA Exchange News* will cease publication with volume 24, issue 1. The CSCC was formed in 1966 by its three sponsors to crate a channel for scholarly communication with the People's Republic of China. In 1972, it undertook the first bilateral exchange of delegations. In the years since, it has facilitated research exchange in the natural and social sciences and humanities, and sponsored publications, workshops, and symposia. # # # From smartin@lternet.edu Wed May 8 12:27:47 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10573; Wed, 8 May 96 12:27:44 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa13023; 8 May 96 12:27 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05628; Wed, 8 May 96 09:13:13 PDT Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 09:13:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu Subject: National Agriculture Library catalog (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Online Catalog of the National Agriculture Library called ISIS is now available through a telnet session. There are two databases on the catalog: the NAL Online Catalog and the Journal Article Citation database. The NAL Online Catalog contains bibiliographic records for all materials in the NAL collection (books, reports, maps, journals, audiovisuals, cd-roms and other electronic media, updated daily. It also includes citations for materials at the US National Arboretum Library and 5 Agricultural Research Service Centers libraries. The Journal Article Citation includes journal articles, reports, etc. equivalent to the AGRICOLA database from 1989 to the present Try it out: telnet opac.nal.usda.gov At the login prompt enter: ISIS /bib gets you into the catalog /ind gets you into the Journal Citation Database /? will give you a list of commands. [material only locally relevant deleted] Carol Green ****************************** Carol C. Green, Head Forest Resources Library University of Washington Box 352112 Seattle, WA 98195-2112 E-mail ccgreen@u.washington.edu (206)543-2758 fax:(206)543-8375 ****************************** From smartin@lternet.edu Wed May 8 12:28:00 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10578; Wed, 8 May 96 12:27:55 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa13180; 8 May 96 12:27 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05687; Wed, 8 May 96 09:15:57 PDT Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 09:15:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu, students@lternet.edu Subject: Additional access to ISIS (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Please excuse the separate posting. --Stephanie, LTER Network Office >->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- There is a link to the National Agricultural Library's ISIS database at the web site http://www.nal.usda.gov/isis This site works if your browser is configured for a telnet session. Carol Green ****************************** Carol C. Green, Head Forest Resources Library University of Washington Box 352112 Seattle, WA 98195-2112 E-mail ccgreen@u.washington.edu (206)543-2758 fax:(206)543-8375 ****************************** From smartin@lternet.edu Mon May 13 11:48:21 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA26225; Mon, 13 May 96 11:48:18 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa06674; 13 May 96 11:48 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA00485; Mon, 13 May 96 08:41:33 PDT Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 08:41:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: lmerpi@lternet.edu Subject: NCEAS' Call for Proposals (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 11:09:18 +0600 > > > NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS > > CALL FOR PROPOSALS > > The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) > solicits proposals to fund > > Working Groups > Resident Fellowships > Training Workshops > > aimed at collaborative research to synthesize existing ecological data > and/or theory to address major fundamental and applied problems in > ecology. > > Application deadline: August 1, 1996. No proposals received after > this date will be considered. > > NCEAS does not award grants; all expenditures are made through the NSF > grant to UCSB. The funds are to support travel to the Center and > expenses (including living expenses of participants while there). > Working groups may request funds to hire postdoctoral researchers and > graduate interns. All funded research will be conducted at the > Center. > > This Call will not fund Workshops except for Training Workshops. > > In addition to the above request, NCEAS is likely to announce a call > for Postdoctoral Fellowship applications in the Fall of 1996, but the > date and details have not yet been decided. Postdoctoral Fellows will > likely be closely associated with Center Working Groups. > > I. NCEAS CHARTER > > The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis was founded in > May 1995 and has been funded for an initial five year period by a grant > to the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) from the > National Science Foundation, with additional support from the State of > California and UCSB. The Center is located off campus in downtown > Santa Barbara. Facilities include offices, meeting rooms and extensive > computing capability. > > II. AREAS OF EMPHASIS > > The Center's focus is collaborative, basic and applied research on the > structure and dynamics of ecological systems. The areas of emphasis from > June 1995 until May 1997 are SPATIOTEMPORAL DYNAMICS and ECOSYSTEM > MANAGEMENT. Proposals for research not falling within these areas but of > a highly innovative and synthetic nature will also be considered. The > Center does not support collection of new field or laboratory data. > > In the area of SPATIOTEMPORAL DYNAMICS, proposals are sought that > integrate spatial analysis and temporal dynamics to solve ecological > problems. These could involve syntheses of multiple data sets, > exploration of new methods of analysis or types of spatial data, or > comparisons of theoretical approaches. Examples include (but are not > limited to): > > A comparison of alternative theoretical approaches for explicitly > modeling the spatial component of dynamical processes in ecological > systems. > > Linking geographic information system data for particular landscapes > with the dynamics of focal species, or other ecological units, on > those landscapes. > > The compilation, synthesis, and analysis of existing long-term data on > population numbers, biomass, production or other ecological processes. > > Integration of spatial dynamics of physical-chemical processes with > spatial dynamics of biotic processes and population interactions. > > Exploring the use of large scale spatial data and models for > biodiversity protection, reserve design, and land management. > > In the area of ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT (EM), proposals are sought that > develop the ability of ecology to support ecosystem management. EM > encompasses all traditional foci of ecology, including populations, > communities, ecosystems and landscapes. > > Examples include, but are not limited to: > > Models that address the complexity, interconnectedness, variability > and mutability of managed ecological systems. > > Issues of spatial-temporal scaling or levels of aggregation for EM. > > Integration of management and ecological information across multiple > scales. > > Interactions of humans and ecological systems, including synthesis of > ecology and economics. > > Adaptability of ecological and management systems. > > Projects designed to promote and improve communication between > scientists and managers. > > III. TYPES OF RESEARCH SUPPORTED AND METHODS OF FUNDING > > NCEAS does not fund collection of new data. Instead, funds will be used > to support activities aimed at integrating existing information to > search for general patterns and to help address important environmental > problems. > > Working Groups are expected to consist of approximately 6-10 individuals > who will reside at the Center, for a period lasting between several > weeks and several months, to conduct intensive collaborative research. > In the Center's experience, group research can be sustained over a > longer period by rotation of some or all of the members through the > Working Group. Working Groups can request access to support of a > Postdoctoral Fellow, but all postdocs are recruited via a national > search, under a separate Call, and reside at the Center. The Center > expects to fund approximately 10 new Working Groups under the Current > call. > > Resident Fellows (typically individuals on sabbatical leave, who may be > eligible for up to one-third of their salary) will be appointed for > periods up to a year. The Center expects to support up to 6 Resident > Fellows under the current call. Allocation of funds among categories > will be flexible. > > Training Workshops are short courses in methods and techniques of > analysis and synthesis aimed at visiting graduate students, young > scientists, and ecologists interested in updating their technical > skills. The Center's computing lab can accommodate 16 participants. > > Applicants are encouraged to consider additional funding sources to > leverage NCEAS resources. > > IV. GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSALS > > Application deadline: August 1, 1996. No proposals received after this > date will be considered. > > Proposals should not exceed 2000 words (excluding references and CVs) > and should be organized as follows: > (1) Title and Summary > (2) Problem Statement > (3) Rationale for NCEAS support > (4) Proposed Activities and Timetable > (5) Anticipated Results and Beneficiaries > (6) Required Resources > (7) Curriculum Vitae of key participants (2 page limit for each). > > Required resources should be described, on the appended form, in terms > of Travel (number of round trips and destinations), Per Diem (number of > participant-days), and Other Anticipated Needs. > > Proposals should be mailed electronically to proposal@nceas.ucsb.edu. > Proposals should be submitted via Email as plain ASCII text (see message > at end of this document on how to do this). > > Additionally, 12 abbreviated copies should be mailed to: Proposal Review > Committee, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 735 > State Street, Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA, 93101-3351. The abbreviated > proposal should omit all c.v.'s except that for the project leader. > > V. REVIEW OF PROPOSALS > > Proposals will be reviewed by the Science Advisory Board and final > awards made by the Director based on the quality of the proposal, its > fit with NCEAS goals and objectives, likelihood of tangible success, and > the availability of Center resources. Proposers will receive only very > brief comments on their proposals. Proposals which are clearly > inappropriate for NCEAS (e.g. those that request overhead, funds to be > spent at the investigator's home institution, are intended to fund new > data collection, request exorbitant sums of money, etc.) will be > returned without review. > > The following comprise the Science Advisory Board: > > Stephen Carpenter - University of Wisconsin, Madison > Ted Case - UC San Diego > Terry Chapin - UC Berkeley > James Clark - Duke University > Philip Crowley - University of Kentucky > Diana Freckman - Colorado State University > Kay Gross - Michigan State University > Peter Kareiva - University of Washington > John Lawton - Imperial College of Silwood Park, > United Kingdom > Charles Peterson - University of North Carolina > Steward Pickett - Institute of Ecosystems Studies, NY > Steven Running - University of Montana > Donald Strong - UC Davis > Peter Turchin - University of Connecticut > Monica Turner - University of Wisconsin > Earl Werner - University of Michigan > > Individuals may submit who hold a position in a U.S. organization, > including academic institutions, free-standing research institutions, > scientific societies, or a consortium of such institutions with > appropriate research and educational programs. Proposals may also > involve multi-institutional arrangements with other organizations (e.g., > international collaborators, public and private sector research > laboratories). > > Additional information, including the initial Center proposal which > contains detailed descriptions of the various sponsored activities > (working groups, fellowships etc.), is available via the World Wide Web > at www.nceas.ucsb.edu, or by contacting the Center directly. Phone: > 805-892-2500; Fax: 805-892-2510; Email: nceas@nceas.ucsb.edu. > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > REQUIRED RESOURCES FORMAT: > PLEASE NOTE THAT NCEAS FISCAL YEAR IS 5/1-4/30 > > ITEM YR.1 YR.2 YR.3* > Travel > (list no. of travelers)U.S. > > Foreign > > **Expenses > (list no. of researchers/days) > > Scientists applying for sabbatical > support (up to 1/3 of salary) > should provide, in the > appropriate yearly column: > > Base monthly salary $ > > Number of months at NCEAS > > ***Postdoc requested? > Yes (enter in yearly columns) No > > Graduate intern(s) requested > (give number, in appropriate columns) > Yes No > ........................................................................ > > * Many projects will not last for three years but the opportunity is > provided for those that will. > > **The Center provides lodging (in hotels or rooms in private homes) and > $37.00 per diem for periods up to 1 month. For periods > 1 month, the > UC approved expense allowance is $63.25/day including lodging. > > *** Postdoctoral Fellows are recruited by the Center, under a separate > call, via a national search. > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Proposal Keywords - please indicate keywords that apply to your > proposal as instructed for each category below > > 1. Organizational Focus 4. Taxonomic Group > (pick 1) (pick all that apply) > ----------------------- ----------------------- > __ Global __ Plants > __ Ecosystem __ Invertebrates > __ Community __ insects > __ Meta-population __ other terr. inverts > __ Population __ marine inverts > __ Organismal __ aquatic inverts > __ Cellular __ Vertebrates > __ Molecular __ mammals > __ birds > 2. Regional Focus __ reptiles/amphibians > (pick all that apply) __ fish > ----------------------- __ Microbes > __ California __ Fungi > __ United States > __ Southwest > __ Northwest 5. Methods > __ Southcentral (pick all that apply) > __ Northcentral ----------------------- > __ Southeast __ Statistical modeling > __ Northeast __ Numerical Analysis > __ Africa __ Simulation model > __ Antarctic __ Visualization > __ Arctic __ Meta-analysis > __ Asia __ Classification and Mapping > __ Australia/NZ __ Other _________________ > __ Canada > __ Central America 6. Research Application > __ Europe (rank up to 3) > __ South America ----------------------- > __ Global __ acid rain > __ agriculture > __ aquaculture > 3. Ecological Theme __ coastal resources > (rank up to 3) __ conservation > ----------------------- __ ecosystem management > __ amensalism __ energy > __ biodiversity __ environmental policy > __ biogeography __ fisheries > __ commensalism __ forestry > __ community dynamics __ global warming > __ competition __ human population > __ complex systems __ land management > __ dispersal __ ozone > __ disturbance __ pollution > __ ecological economics __ reserve siting/design > __ evolution __ restoration > __ genetics __ toxicology > __ global change __ Other _________________ > __ methodological innovation > __ microclimate > __ mutualism 7. Biomes > __ nutrient cycling (pick all that apply) > __ paleoecology ----------------------- > __ plant-animal interactions __ Marine > __ population dynamics __ Benthic > __ predator-prey interactions __ Pelagic > __ primary production __ Intertidal > __ soil processes __ Terrestrial > __ succession __ Forest > __ parasitism __ Grassland > __ symbiosis __ Desert > __ Other _________________ __ Wetlands > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > EMAIL SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS TO NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS > AND SYNTHESIS > > NCEAS prefers that all proposals be submitted through Email as plain > ASCII text. This will greatly expedite the process of forwarding > proposals on for review, where the ultimate recipients cannot be > expected to have the capability of dealing with proprietary > word-processing formats (e.g. MS Word, WordPerfect) or other specific > binary encodings (e.g. MIME, bin-hex, uuencode). > > To save your document as plain text, simply choose this option in your > word-processing software, where it will almost certainly NOT be the > default output. In many wordprocessors, this option will appear as a > choice of 'text' or 'ASCII' under a 'save as' menu item (or something > quite similar). People using editors like 'vi, 'pico', MS 'edit' > etc., needn't worry about this conversion as those programs ARE plain > ASCII editors. > > Another small procedure to avoid is submission of documents via Email as > 'attachments'. Such attachments almost always involve doing some > encoding of the data, and rely on the recipient end's mail software to > have complementary decoding features. Many mail programs currently in > use do not yet have these features. > > For example, the popmailer 'Eudora' typically defaults to 'bin-hexing' > attached documents. Decoding a bin-hexed document can be troublesome > for non-Macintosh or non-Eudora users. So please be sure to 'include' > rather than 'attach' your proposal. By include, we mean that the > proposal is an unformatted part of the body of the Email, and clearly > readable without any further processing. > > Thank you for following the above instructions as you submit your > proposal to NCEAS. > > EOF > > > -- > From smartin@lternet.edu Thu May 16 17:49:57 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA10226; Thu, 16 May 96 17:49:55 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa05498; 16 May 96 17:49 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22279; Thu, 16 May 96 14:38:22 PDT Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 14:38:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: USGCRP Seminar Series, DD (May & June events) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Additional information on the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and this Seminar Series is available on the USGCRP Home Page at: http://www.usgcrp.gov. Normally these seminars are held on the second Monday of each month. U.S. Global Change Research Program Second Monday Seminar Series "A Close Look at Global Satellite and Surface Temperature Records and Trends" Monday and Tuesday, May 20-21, 1996 NEXT SEMINAR: Monday, June 10, 1996 "Forest Responses to the Changing Composition of the Atmosphere" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U.S. Global Change Research Program Second Monday Seminar Series A Close Look at Global Satellite and Surface Temperature Records and Trends (Parts I and II) How is the Earth's temperature measured? What are the historical trends in the Earth's temperature as observed from surface measurements and from satellites? Are these records different? What are the reasons for the differences? Can satellite and surface temperature records be reconciled? Where do the uncertainties lie and how can they be addressed? To what extent do the records indicate that climate is changing due to human influences? What is the evidence that humans are having a discernible influence on the global climate? Public Invited Special Two-Part Seminar: Monday and Tuesday, May 20-21, 1996, 3:15-4:45 PM Rayburn House Office Bldg., Room B369, Washington, DC Reception Following INTRODUCTION Dr. Michael C. MacCracken, Director, Office of the US Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC SPEAKERS Monday, May 20: The Satellite Temperature Record Dr. John R. Christy, Earth System Science Lab, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, on "The Tropospheric Temperature Record from the Microwave Sounding Units" Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, on "Relating the Satellite and Surface Temperature Records" Tuesday, May 21: The Surface Temperature Record Dr. Tom M. L. Wigley, Senior Climate Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, on "Interpreting the Global Warming Record" Dr. Benjamin D. Santer, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, on "The Search for a "Fingerprint" of Human Activities in Observed Climate Records" OVERVIEW Temperature is perhaps the most common measure of the climate of a region, whether it is the cold temperatures of winter in Minnesota or the hot temperatures of summer in Arizona. Temperature, along with precipitation, also controls many aspects of ecosystems, helping determine spring blooming and the extent of mosquitoes and other vectors for diseases. For these reasons and more, the longest records of climate in many areas are of temperature. Similarly for the globe, records of temperature are the most abundant, provide the longest quantitative record, and can be most readily compiled and compared. Analysis of the temperature record, on scales from regional to global, has thus been a critical part of studies of the patterns and extent of climatic change. While temperature is the most complete record, the measurements and available data sets, nonetheless, have many shortcomings. For surface measurements, these include changes in measurement techniques, limits to the coverage of measurements, changes in the surroundings around a stations, and many more. Efforts are therefore being made to measure the Earth's temperature from space, but again there are many limitations, including, among others, the inability to measure surface temperature, the changing sequence of instruments, and the limited length of the record. This seminar will provide the opportunity to look closely at the records of both satellites and surface stations, to consider their relative strengths and weaknesses, and to consider what these records show and do not show. The Satellite Temperature Record Since 1979, Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen. The intensity is shown to be proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere, as demonstrated by theory and direct comparisons with atmospheric temperatures from radiosonde (balloon) profiles. A record that is now more than 17 years long has been created by merging data from nine different MSUs, each with peculiarities (e.g., time drift of the spacecraft relative to the local solar time) that must be calculated and removed because they can have substantial impacts on the resulting trend. A natural step with such a record is to look for trends over this period, even though it is quite short compared to the surface temperature record. Between 20=9AN-20=9AS, independent view-angle trends in channel 2 and 4 show a warming trend in the upper troposphere with cooling in the lower troposphere, implying a non-linear vertical temperature adjustment. The greatest differences between the satellite and surface records occur between 30=9AS-30=9AN and 52=9AN-82=9AN. An important aspect of deriving trends and looking for any human influence, especially over short periods, is accounting for what might be irregular and extraneous natural events. For the MSU record, these include the century's largest El Nino warming in the early 1980s and the century's largest volcanically induced cooling in the early 1990s. The tilt in the trend caused by these two events suggests a cooling trend over the period of record. When the MSU records are adjusted for El Nino events and volcanoes so that the greenhouse/aerosol effect will likely be the dominant influence, the resulting temperature trend is positive, rising at a rate of +0.055 to 0.0110 =9AC per decade. Because the MSU observations are measuring the temperature of the atmosphere and not of the surface, an important question is how the two are related. While the traditional notion has been that they are closely coupled at all times and throughout the world, this has turned out not to be the case. Recent research is starting to provide explanations for the apparent differences and to explain when and where decoupling of the two temperatures occurs, and how this is likely to affect comparison of the two records. At the May 20 seminar, Dr. Christy will describe the MSU record and point out the different indications that it provides of climate change. Dr. Trenberth will describe how the satellite record compares to the surface temperature record and what this means with respect to conclusions that can be drawn. The Surface Temperature Record According to a recently released report from the World Meteorological Organization, the estimated global mean surface air temperature for 1995 was the highest since reliable temperature records began in 1861. The previous warmest year was 1990, which was just before the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption that has suppressed temperatures for the past several years. The warmth in 1995, unlike that for 1990, could not be attributed to an El Nino because the average Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature anomalies were near the 1961-90 average for 1995. Instead, the warmth was evident over other regions, including the North Atlantic Ocean, where sea surface temperatures were more than 1=9A C warmer in an area centered around the Azores. In addition, parts of Siberia were more that 3=9A C warmer than the 1961-1990 period. However, as would be expected because of year-to-year variations, the warmth was not uniform; Greenland, the northwest Atlantic Ocean, and the mid-latitudes of the North Pacific Ocean were actually cooler than average in 1995. Temperature records for a representative fraction of the Earth go back to 1861. The temperature record since that time suggests an overall warming of 0.3 to 0.6 =9AC from the 1860s to the 1990s, with the early decades of this century being slightly cooler temperatures than in the mid-19th century and with a secondary maximum of temperatures (compared to the 1990s) in the decades around 1940. Proxy records derived from tree rings, ice cores, boreholes, and other indirect measures, combined with the thermometer record, suggest that the most recent decades are the warmest period since at least 1400 AD, and perhaps as far back as the last interglacial (period of warmth) about 80,000 years ago. The IPCC concluded that this combination of factors suggested that climate change is occurring. The fact that there have been natural fluctuations of the climate over the past millennium of about 0.5 =9AC (about a cooler mean temperature) introduces the possibility that the recent warming might be due to natural processes rather than to human activities. To try to distinguish the human influence, model simulations have been used to generate the patterns of climate change to be expected from changes in a range of different factors, both natural and human-induced. Analyses of these characteristic patterns (or "fingerprints") indicate that the patterns of climate change are much more likely to be due to human activities than to natural factors, leading the IPCC to conclude that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." At the May 21 seminar, Dr. Wigley will describe the records of surface temperatures and the climate trends that emerge, and compare these to the model projections of climate change since the 1861s. Dr. Santer will then describe the recent studies to attribute the observed changes to specific causes of change, especially to human activities. BIOGRAPHIES Dr. John R. Christy is Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and has studied global climate issues since 1987. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, and Dr. Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data that had been recorded by the MSU instrument on NOAA satellites, beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1995 Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer received a Special Award from the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of Earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." Dr. Christy obtained his B. A. degree from the CA State Univ., Fresno (Mathematics) in 1973, and later taught science as a missionary teacher in Nyeri, Kenya. After earning a seminary degree in 1978, he served four years as a bivocational mission-pastor in South Dakota where he also taught college math. He subsequently received M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987) under Dr. Kevin Trenberth. Dr. Christy has served as a contributing lead author on climate assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1992, 1994 and 1995), and has also published numerous scientific articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, the Journal of Climate and the Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Kevin Trenberth was born in New Zealand, where he remains a citizen. He is Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, CO. After completing a first class honors degree in mathematics at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, he obtained his Sc. D. in meteorology in 1972 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Following several years in the New Zealand Meteorological Service, he joined the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois as an Associate Professor and became a full Professor in 1984, before moving to NCAR in 1984. He continued as an Adjunct Professor until 1989. From 1991 to 1995 he served as Deputy Division Director of the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at NCAR. Dr. Trenberth has served as Editor of the Monthly Weather Review, Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate, and presently serves as editor of the new electronic scientific journal Earth Interactions. and is the author of many research papers. He serves on the executive committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Advisory Panel on Climate and Global Change, the National Academy of Sciences Global Ocean Atmosphere Land System (GOALS) panel, the Atmospheric Observation Panel for Climate of the Global Climate Observing System, and the International Scientific Steering Group for the CLIVAR (Climate Variability and Predictability) Program. Dr. Trenberth has been a prominent author in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Scientific Assessment activities and is a lead author for Chapter 1 of the 1995 Scientific Assessment. He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and was made an Honorary Fellow of the New Zealand Royal Society in 1995. Dr. Tom Wigley was born and educated in Australia. After his undergraduate degree he trained as a meteorologist and worked for a year as a research meteorologist before returning to university to complete a Ph.D. in Mathematical Physics. He then joined the faculty of the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. In 1975, he moved to the United Kingdom to the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, becoming Director in 1978. In 1993, he left the Unit to join the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) in Boulder, CO. In 1994, he received a Senior Scientist appointment with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Dr. Wigley has published widely on diverse aspects of the broad field of climatology; from data analysis, to climate impacts on agriculture and water resources, to climate, sea level and carbon cycle modeling, to paleoclimatology. Dr. Wigley has concentrated recently on facets of the greenhouse problem, and has contributed as a lead author to all of the IPCC assessments of the climate change issue. Dr. Wigley had a major role in the preparation of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Second Assessment Report, and contributed important information to the reports of the other Working Groups. He was responsible for producing the future concentration profiles for achieving stabilization of CO-2 concentrations used in Working Groups I and III; he produced the global-mean projections for temperature and sea level change given in Working Group I; and he was a lead author for the Working Group I detection chapter. Dr. Benjamin D. Santer is a senior member of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA. His research interests include detection of anthropogenic climate change and climate model validation. He received his B.Sc. in environmental sciences in 1977, graduating with first class honors, and his Ph.D. in climatology in 1987. Both were obtained at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K. Dr. Santer's doctoral work focused on the use of Monte Carlo methods (randomization) in the regional validation of climate General Circulation Models. Dr. Santer then served as a postdoctoral research scientist (for two years), and later as a research scientist (for three years) at the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI) in Hamburg, Germany, where he worked closely with Dr. Klaus Hasselmann on climate-change detection. He is the Convening Lead Author for Chapter 8 ("Detection of Climate Change, and Attribution of Causes") of the 1995 Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Santer is also currently a member of the Science Advisory Group of NOAA's Climate Change, Data and Detection Program, and of the International CLIVAR (Climate Variability and Predictability) Numerical Experimentation Group on anthropogenic climate change. NEXT SEMINAR: Monday, June 10, 1996 Forest Responses to the Changing Composition of the Atmosphere For more information please contact: Dr. Anthony D. Socci, U.S. Global Change Research Program Office 300 D St., SW, Suite 840, Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 651-8244; Fax: (202) 554-6715 E-Mail: TSOCCI@USGCRP.GOV. From smartin@lternet.edu Tue May 14 17:24:00 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02338; Tue, 14 May 96 17:23:57 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa07740; 14 May 96 17:23 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11286; Tue, 14 May 96 14:08:46 PDT Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 14:08:46 -0700 (PDT) X-UIDL: 832128760.018 From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: net@lternet.edu Subject: April 1996 LTER/CC Minutes Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O M I N U T E S LTER COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING April 25-6, 1996 Manhattan, Kansas In attendance LTER site representatives: Fred Swanson and Reed Perkins (AND), John Hobbie and John O'Brien (ARC), John Yarie (BNZ), Peter Reich (CDR), Bill Lauenroth (CPR-SGS), Dave Coleman (CWT), Charles Driscoll (HBR), David Foster (HFR), Laura Heunneke (JRN), Kay Gross (KBS), Bob Waide (LUQ), Robert Wharton (MCM), James Gosz (NET), Jerry Franklin (NET), Stephanie Martin (NET), Rudolf Nottrott (NET), John Vande Castle (NET), Scott Collins (NSF), John Magnuson (NTL), Tim Seastedt (NWT), Ray Smith and Bill Fraser (PAL), Bruce Milne (SEV), Bruce Hayden (VCR) Hosts: John Briggs, David Hartnett, Alan Knapp (KNZ) Guest: Don Dreves (NOAA/CIA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - April 24 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION REPORT Budget Scenarios Scott Collins (DEB/NSF) reported that Congress was close to passing another continuing resolution. The increase over last year's budget to come to NSF will make little difference at DEB, which will be funded at 95% of last year. This means that LTER will be in the hole about 5% this year; nevertheless, projects with an October start date will receive money early on a first come, first served basis. Several sites were forward funded (funds will need to come from elsewhere), and just enough funding was found for a supplement competition. The division may see an 8 to 7% increase in 1977, but the present agency budget request is effectively dead on arrival. Mary Clutter is promoting the idea of a new LTER site competition for an urban LTER. The '97 request includes an urban site to be jointly funded with Education and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. Congress may like the idea and release new money, or like it and not release new money. (By the end of the meeting, participants learned that a House omnibus spending bill for FY '97 had passed with $3.25 billion for NSF, $75 million below the President's request. Highlights: funds were restored for infrastructure, reduced for research, reduced for Education and Human Resources, reduced for salaries and expenses, and restored for the South Pole Safety Project. The Senate may restore more, but the LTER budget may still be negatively impacted. The bill included a proposal that the name of the agency be changed to the National Science & Engineering Foundation.) There will be no cross-site competition this year, but the LMER-LTER workshop is still on, and the Network Office competition has reached the site-visit stage. The review team will visit both the University of New Mexico and SUNY-Buffalo, NY. LTER Renewal Panel Results All six sites reviewed (AND, CWT, KNZ, NTL, PAL, SGS) were refunded; two were required to submit addenda. Data accessibility was an important factor. Some reviewers had trouble obtaining data that was supposedly online, and they insisted that at least core data be accessible online. Collins noted that, while LTER does a better job in this area than any other group in the ecological community, NSF administration wants good core data and metadata online to promote science and collaborative opportunities. LTER needs to emphasize that it is leading in this area by encouraging the larger ecological community to come up to speed, possibly through the National Ecological Analysis and Synthesis Center. John Hobbie (ARC) noted that LTER has a broad data management policy in place, and that historically as a group LTER sites do not impose standards. Nevertheless, he argued, there has to be some uniform charge to LTER panels and continuity of policy within DEB. He cited the example of the JGOFS program, which recently set a two-year data availability policy. (Scott Collins provided other examples, including Systematics, Inventories and LTREB, but acknowledged that few sites in these programs have anything online yet.) Since the LTER sites are playing to two audiences--NSF and the greater ecological community--reviewers may be getting mixed messages. What should expectations be? How many and what kind of datasets should be online? What standard should be followed? Fred Swanson suggested that the sites might need to exercise some self-discipline in getting their datasets in order and making them accessible. He offered to share H.J. Andrews' recent review experience and to help prepare the next cohort. Finally, Scott Collins urged the group to use this requirement to demonstrate the value of LTER to the community, to set an example and promote LTER in a positive sense. "The writing is on the wall," he said. "There is no longer an excuse for any site to delay." Program Officer Candidates Division of Environmental Biology program officer candidates are needed from LTER to replace Scott Collins. Chair Jim Gosz showed a chart of the rotating program officer model and stressed the importance of the sites taking responsibility to ensure that there are LTER-cognizant people in DEB. John Magnuson (NTL) reminded the group that providing program officers not only serves the community, but also is useful for the site. Scott Collins noted that Gaius Shaver (ARC) will start in and Tom Frost (NTL) has committed for 1997. Both will have the option to work in Long-Term Projects. OXFORD CONTRACT Publications Committee chair Bruce Hayden (VCR) reported that two weeks ago Oxford expressed new concerns about electronic publications in the near-completed contract negotiations, providing amended contract language for LTER's consideration. The Publications Committee found the new language and its implications unacceptable. From their comments, Hayden crafted language for the LTER/CC's review. New issues raised include the possibility of LTER material being sold to third parties without prior author knowledge and approval, Oxford claiming exclusive rights to LTER Internet postings that are in direct conflict with NSF's public access policy, and overly restrictive or inaccurate use of terms such as "verbatim presentations" and "raw data." The Publications Committee agreed that any derived publications should at least afford the author(s) an opportunity to incorporate new and/or contradictory findings. Hayden sought the LTER/CC's comment on how the draft language he provided could be improved or perfected to protect LTER's rights. He posted recommendations for their consideration and decision: 1) LTER must make a promise not to use verbatim material from the covered publications online without permission from the publisher, 2) the LTER/CC will empower the LTER/EXEC to approve the final wording of the contract, and 3) the contract language should include the opportunity for amendment or withdrawal after a period of two years. The group agreed to review the new Oxford text and the proposed changes and recommendations and provide feedback for a decision the next day. On a related matter, Scott Collins volunteered that if a site synthesis volume is a criteria the sites want, he would take it as a suggestion to NSF to be included in the LTER site review panel guidelines. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ELECTION (A list of past and present members is now available at http://lternet.edu/program/ex_mem.htm) Jim Gosz reported that three individuals were nominated via e-mail as possible replacements for John Hobbie (ARC), whose term on the LTER/EXEC has expired: Charles Driscoll (HBR), Stan Gregory (AND), and Ray Smith (PAL). He invited additional nominations from the floor, but none were put forward. The responsibility of being on the LTER/EXEC, he noted, may be more onerous now than in the past, with extra duties associated with the upcoming Network Office transition. He invited statements from the candidates present. Ray Smith emphasized an interest in maintaining budgets and bringing the LTER online data policy into accordance with site perspectives. Charles Driscoll emphasized promoting intersite work and reviewing data management activities. On behalf of Stan Gregory (not present), Fred Swanson noted that Gregory's work focuses on forest-stream interactions and limnology, and that he has been active in intersite work. The first vote resulted in a near-tie between Driscoll and Smith (10 votes were needed to win). A second vote was taken and Ray Smith was elected. Jim Gosz extended thanks to John Hobbie for his dedicated service to the Committee over the last three years. FALL 1996 LTER/CC MEETING On behalf ot the LTER/EXEC, David Foster (HFR) reviewed the LTER/CC's past decision to organize the larger (two representatives per site) Coordinating Committee meetings around synthetic themes to stimulate synthetic activities and products. Meeting support in the Network Office proposal now being reviewed is designed with this structure in mind. The fall 1995 meeting at Cedar Creek, for example, incorporated sessions on the topic of Biodiversity (see Biodiversity workshop report below). The fall 1996 meeting, scheduled for Harvard Forest, will address regional science topics and will include a field trip to the Hubbard Brook site if cost and logistical concerns can be resolved. The media workshop previously planned for the fall meeting fell through as it became clear that the entire cost would fall on the site. The LTER/EXEC decided instead on the regional science theme, which particularly should be enhanced by the experience from the first two augmented sites (North Temperate Lakes and Coweeta) that have regionalization as part of their research programs. The regional theme should also serve to tie together the activities of Harvard Forest and Hubbard Brook. David Foster solicited feedback from the group about the topic and workshop to help identify thrusts or subtopics to allow sites working on similar topics, such as disturbance, to get together. The following subtopics were settled upon: Regionalization/Regional Scale Subthemes: Scaling up (process, modeling) Gradients/Ecotones Disturbance Human/Social Context 1997 COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETINGS Chair Jim Gosz invited feedback on future LTER/CC meeting topics and structure, as well as what products PIs would like to see from these thematic meetings (books, synthetic workshops, etc.). He noted that if the LTER/EXEC Network Office proposal is funded, there will be other opportunities for workshops. After discussion, the following themes and meeting locations were tentatively agreed upon. It was also agreed that themes would be developed at the network, rather than the site, level so that it was not considered critical that the host site and theme match up according to site specialty. Future LTER/CC Meeting Themes: 1997 Ecological Applications to Policy and Management (AND, spring 1997) Climate Variability and Ecological Responses, and Carbon Fluxes (PAL, UCSB & NCEAS, fall 1997) 1998 Population Demography/Dynamics (SGS and NWT, spring 1998) Interactions Between Ecological Systems Society (NTL, fall 1998) 1999 Complex Systems (SEV, spring 1999) Disturbance and Recruitment Dynamics (LUQ, fall 1999) 2000 and Beyond: Biological Legacies Comparative Study of Ecological Processes Simulation Modeling Site Histories IMAGERY ARCHIVE Following up on a proposal presented to the community by Bill Schlesinger (JRN) last year, NOAA Corps Officer Don Dreves was invited to present information on the Global Fiducial Program (GFP), an initiative begun by then-Senator Al Gore's recommendation that classified technologies be used in research. Some of these technologies have been used in research for 20 years, for example, in geological mapping. Demonstration projects, such as the Civil Requirement Group (NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, CIA), have already been completed. The intelligence community wants civil agencies like NSF to buy into the program, and within NSF LTER is a particularly good fit. The objectives of the GFP are: 1) to use national classified assets to obtain a long-term record at sites worldwide to study environmental processes and changes that occur over years or decades (natural environmental variation, human-caused changes); and 2) to benefit the next generation of scientists (the long-term record available will be declassified at some point). Once met, GFP objectives will: 1) make data available in an active archive (data will be classified, oldest likely to be declassified in future), 2) allow analysis of data to document environmental change and understand long-term processes (classified data available to properly cleared scientists, can prepare unclassified derived products). Dreves distributed a MEDEA-recommended site selection list of 132 sites (including most LTERs), and provided Jim Gosz with a program summary. The GFP program involves: 1) calibrating sites (have ongoing investigations and other imagery, use to help understand NTM assets); 2) establishing change detection and process study sites (sites or transects most useful to study long-term change, coordinate with on-the-ground activities or unclassified imagery record, if possible); and 3) identifying criteria for selection (agency mission and mandates, long-term environmental change). Participating agencies will have the opportunity to get images for sites that normally would not be accessible, either due to cost or their classified nature. It is possible to define a central point and boundaries, with accuracy to a 10th of a minute. The intelligence community expects to produce 6,000 to 12,000 images per year--about 12 images/site on average. Currently declassified data include Corona satellite data, ER-2 and Blackhawk datasets from around 1969-1972. The data and information management intelligence community is funding this effort out of an environmental program created a few years ago. They have agreed to provide: 1) data (digital form, one central location); 2) data access (via a database management system with a user-friendly interface that will enable browsing (B & W panchromatic) imagery, remote access to directory over a secure line); and 3) archives (will make data available for fiducial sites, pointers to data location--Reston, Virginia--in database management system, and pointers to unclassified data sources). There will be a web-type page with a link to the relevant person with classified clearance. A policy for analysis access is presently being created by the central imagery office. The policy likely will include: 1) a PI and government project leader will be identified for each site, and 2) ongoing analysis and evaluation (to assure data quality, that collections accomplish the program purpose, and that data are useful). In discussion it was noted that spectral imagery now cannot be used in a derived publication, and that journals will have to start making accommodation. Bob Wharton (MCM) cited a recent example of using unclassified derived products for publication (see Schlesinger, W.H. and N. Gramenopoulos. 1996. Archival photographs show no climate-induced changes in woody vegetation in the Sudan, 1943-94. Global Change Biol. 2, 101-105). The primary intention of the program will be to create a digital archive. The intelligence community has agreed to fund program development and capital investment for the archive startup, and to provide digital data. The plan is to develop a self-managed working group of civil agency participants. If NSF, NOAA and USGS do not nominate sites and demonstrate an interest in participating in a timely manner, the intelligence community will likely withdraw the program. Dreves pointed out that there are no direct costs to the civil agencies (other than personnel) for at least five years (USGS budget includes support) but, down the line, there may be maintenance costs at the agency level. There are some restrictions of which to be aware: 1) the activity cannot interfere with national security interests; 2) the resolution level provides a "soda straw," rather than a broad view; and 3) manual intervention, once coordinates and boundaries are defined, is not possible. The smart system computer will run more or less automatically, adjusting to cloud cover. However, in response to a significant event, agencies can obtain near real-time data. The LTER/CC discussed whether it was essential initially for each site and NSF to have a person identified for this activity. It was decided that sites should have input (in terms of defining boundary conditions, spatial coverage, etc.) into the type of imagery obtained and that John Vande Castle (NET) would be a key person to obtain clearance as an extension of his normal role. The process costs about $3,000 per individual. The LTER-NASA remote sensing group should be able to inform this effort and be a centralized pool of talent for LTER, if appropriate clearances can be obtained. The imagery could be used in concert with SPOT or LANDSAT, since images of all areas at all sites would probably not be possible to obtain. A hand vote showed unanimous interest among the sites in acquiring the imagery. (Although coordinates were provided to Bill Schlesinger previously, the Shortgrass Steppe, formerly Central Plans, site will need to provide new information to reflect its recent expansion.) Scott Collins agreed to notify NSF--ultimately Tom Baerwald in GEO--of the sites' support). Following a suggestion that a possible link could be made to the ILTER effort, Don Dreves urged site representatives *not to share this activity widely* --particularly with international colleagues--due to present sensitivities and possible national security concerns. WORKSHOP REPORTS LIDET Workshop Tim Seastedt (NWT) reported that the critical nutrient data from the Long-Term Intersite Decomposition Experiment Team (LIDET) will soon be available. These data will be useful for addressing local and regional questions up to network-level questions. Mark Harmon is preparing a workshop report. The plan is to proceed with posting data online, testing hypotheses quickly, with a timeline of late fall for the draft stage on major synthetic questions. The group hopes to have a finished product early next year to submit to *Ecological Applications,* with the possible development of a book or synthesis volume later on. Soils Standarization Workshop Dave Coleman (CWT) reported on the recent Soils Standardization workshop held 26-29 March at the Sevilleta and organized by Phil Sollins (AND), Phil Robertson (KBS), Caroline Bledsoe (NET), Bill Schlesinger (JRN) and Coleman. The 32 participants adopted a set of recommended methods to foster and enable cross-site analysis with respect to soil physical, chemical and biological properties. Many arrived with draft chapters in hand and participated in concurrent sessions across aspects of soil physics and chemistry. The product of the workshop has been proposed as the initial volume in the Oxford synthesis series. The Publications Committee will review with the LTER/EXEC on behalf of the LTER/CC whether it is appropriate. Publications Committee chair Bruce Hayden gave initial advice to the group about planning a synthesis volume: it should be the product of a science activity or workshop that achieves synthesis. In other words, it should be more than a collection of papers on a common theme. For the soils volume, Phil Robertson (editor in chief) has over 50% of the material in hand and is in the process of identifying five anonymous, non-Network reviewers. The full manuscript will go back to the authors July 1, and will be submitted to the editors in August. The working title is *Soils Methods Standardization Volume.* Workshop participants: David Armstrong (NTL), Robert Ahrens (NCRS), John Blair (KNZ), Caroline Bledsoe (NET), Richard Boone (HFR), David Coleman (CWT), Frank Day (VCR), Charles Driscoll (HBR), Edward Elliott (CSU), Timothy Fahey (HBR), Diana Freckman (MCM), James Gosz (NET/SEV), David Grigal (CDR), Peter Groffman (HBR), Mark Harmon (AND), Elisabeth Holland (NWT), Wesley Jarrell (HRN), Nancy Johnson (SEV), Eugene Kelly (SGS), Michael Klug (KBS), Kate Lajtha (AND), H. Curtis Monger (HRN), David Myrold (AND), Knute Nadelhoffer (ARC), Thomas O'Dell (UWa), Eldor Paul (KBS), Phillip Robertson (KBS), Roger Ruess (BNA), Robert Sinsabaugh (U of Toledo, OH), Phillip Sollins (AND), David Wedin (CDR), Ziaoming Zou (LUQ). Brief discussion included a question about whether saturated soils were addressed. Coleman noted that while they are not featured, chapters do address saturated soils. During additional discussion, Gosz read a letter from Phil Robertson that announced that the National Resource Conservation Service has indicated its willingness to help LTER sites update soil maps. Bob Waide reported that a recent soil mapping exercise with the group at Luquillo had been very productive. (Later in the meeting, Phil Robertson sent a motion requesting Network Office budget support--$2,000-$4,000 for six participants--for meetings with NRCS to produce detailed soil maps for the LTER sites. Chair Jim Gosz put the request to a hand vote, and the result was unanimous in favor. An ad-hoc soil map committee will be formed to pursue this opportunity.) LMER-LTER Workshop Co-organizer Bruce Hayden provided background on the development of the upcoming LMER-LTER workshop. Similarities between the LTER and Land-Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER) programs have been recognized for some time. Many have asked why these programs are managed separately, and the notion was floated at NSF that it might be beneficial for both programs if LMER sites were converted to LTER sites. Since such a merger requires considerable study and community discussion, a proposal was submitted to NSF for a workshop to consider a common future for the two programs. The proposal was funded and 24 people have been identified who might serve to evaluate the issues involved. Due to the extended government furlough the workshop was postponed, but it has been tentatively rescheduled for July. Hayden and co-organizer John Magnuson are finalizing a date and location. Hayden noted that this exercise is extremely important in terms of the potential for bringing new sites on board. Some of the issues the workshop will address include defining what is expected of new LTER sites, and what extra funding would be required to bring LTER sites up to speed, in some ways, with LMER sites and vice versa. Among immediate concerns: the LMER site that was funded at a lower level than the others is up for competition and the announcement will have to go out soon. Biological Oceanography, the NSF division which jointly funds the LMER Program, has different concerns than DEB; namely, what to do with the long-term datasets already developed under LMER? Clearly, Scott Collins noted, there are long-term issues in coastal areas that could benefit from long-term funding. With respect to this activity, he noted that the LTER community needs to readdress the issue of new sites coming on board, and how the Network can best offer its support. James Gosz suggested this might be a topic to explore at the fall LTER/CC meeting. LTER-NASA Standardization Workshop John Vande Castle (NET) reported briefly on the upcoming May LTER-NASA standardization workshop led by Warren Cohen (AND) that will help to kickoff a study (involving 14 LTER sites) that is partially funded by NASA's Terrestrial Ecology Program in the Office of Mission to Planet Earth. The present NASA commitment is for $4 million over three to four years, with the potential for additional support. Vande Castle noted that current information on the LTER-NASA collaboration is accessible via the Network web at http://lternet.edu/nasa. Included is information on the sun photometer activity, which started as a way to generate satellite data for the sites and now is a major part of the NASA AERONET program. He also provided information on NASA Global Land Cover Test Sites (includes LTERs) put together by Ken McGuire (MCM), which is now accessible via the same location at the Network web site. Future LTER-NASA activities include calibrating TM data, investigating TM calibration, and generating the distribution of sites using NASA scenes and AVHRR data. Biodiversity Workshop Bob Waide (LUQ) reviewed how the Biodiversity effort had begun and reported on the status of the effort since the Cedar Creek LTER/CC meeting last fall. From a suggestion that the Luquillo LTER, as a tropical site, should carry the banner for biodiversity, Waide volunteered to run a workshop on the topic at the last LTER meeting, and then agreed to lead the writing of a proposal to NCEAS, which was funded. Now the effort may extend to as many as three books, and possibly a video. To date, 11 sites have submitted the species lists that all sites agreed to provide for a common electronic document following the October workshop. Those still outstanding are due no later than May 15. The final details of the NCEAS-funded workshop (Waide & Willing), scheduled for September 10-17, 1996, are coming together. The products being considered include submission of an overview to *BioScience,* and a proposal (suggested by Judy Meyer, CWT) to support an annual review of the data and analysis. A biodiversity and productivity synthesis volume is a possibility, but depends on workshop outcomes. The workshop format will include three meetings: 1) The first meeting will involve the full group (a representative of each site and six outside participants, one to two with statistical analysis expertise), which will meet for five days. The smaller group will meet for two additional days, and subgroups will meet to answer specific questions (see preliminary questions below) to come out of the workshop. 2) The second meeting (to be scheduled), will include three days of critical evaluation of results and will involve outside experts with whom to test ideas developed in the first meeting. 3) At the third meeting (probably April 1997), the four principals will work on any book that may result. Organizers will send out a questionnaire to gather information about site datasets and mechanisms controlling biodiversity at sites, and site representatives will be required to do some pre-workshop reading and data preparation. Each will also be asked to search the literature for their site system and send ahead information on published datasets. They will also be asked to look across the broadest scale possible to include non- LTER data. Possible outside experts (additional names were solicited for broader representation): Gary Mitteback--aquatic organisms Sam Scheiner--plants Terry Chapin--arctic herbs Mike Huston--plants, forests and old fields Sarah Spaulding--nematodes, algae Mike Rosenzweig--small mammals Stuart Pimm--birds Matt Lafield--algae, aquatic invertebrates Steve Hubbbell/Rich Condit--tropical trees John Moore--microorganisms Bill Tonn--fishes Bob Haskins--birds Workshop Questions: What is the shape of the relationship between productivity and biodiversity? Are patterns consistent among systems? Among trophic levels? Are there different mechanisms (including disturbance) controlling biodiversity at different points along the productivity gradient? What is the spatial scale of diversity in these systems? Do spatial patterns shift from low to high productivity? How does diversity respond to manipulated increases in productivity? What kind of experiment would we design to test the mechanisms underlying the relationship between productivity and diversity? ESA FLED REPORT Kay Gross (KBS), chair of the ESA Future of Long-Term Datasets ad-hoc committee, distributed copies of the final FLED documents and reported that the committee was now dissolved. She thanked the LTER community for their participation in the effort and noted that an additional copy of the two volumes was mailed to each LTER site. Volume I contains the text of the summary, and Volume II is a directory of organizations that collect or maintain long-term datasets, including contact information, web page addresses, a list of individual collections, and an annotated bibliography. The full set will soon be on the ESA home page (http://www.sdsc.edu). A second committtee may be formed to look at data sharing and archiving. Gross is presently preparing a final report to the Mellon Foundation, which funded the effort, and she invited comments from the LTER/CC to include. Kay Gross suggested that continuing LTER support and participation might include: 1) providing information on locating and using existing sources of ecological data, 2) establishing and maintaining a home page with links to various sources of ecological data (possibly cooperating and supporting the efforts of other agencies), and 3) educating ESA members as to how to use and contribute to these data. Funding would likely be through Systematics at NSF, but alternative sources of funding would also need to be identified. (Mellon and other foundations and agencies tend to support collection, but not archiving). LTER might establish a gatekeeper to prioritize data to be archived and ensure that use and access information are not lost (see the metadata recommendation developed by committee member Bill Michener, Vol. I), to adequately document data and standards, and to promote incentives to document data and make it widely available. The FLED Committee endorsed using a system of accession numbers and made recommendations as to how to cite datasets. With regard to data sharing and coordination issues, LTER may want to lend its support to an ESA demonstration project funded by NSF's Biological Instrumentation and Resources and encourage the Ethics Committee of ESA to renew its Code of Ethics to include explicit language that addresses data sharing and collection and intellectual property protections. LTER can also promote interactions and collaborations between ecologists and scientists in other disciplines (such as systematics), perhaps by sponsoring workshops to highlight the differences, and support efforts by other disciplines to increase funding for biological collections. During discussion of a possible role for LTER in the implementation of the recommendations in the FLED report, Kay Gross offered to take to ESA any LTER recommendation or expression of support or participation. Instead, Jim Gosz suggested that he draft a letter on behalf ot the LTER/CC offering LTER's services to ESA and send it to lead PIs via e-mail to solicit their comment. The LTER/CC unanimously endorsed this proposal. The letter will include an argument for the national need of an ecological archive, information on LTER site archeological datasets, and an expression of concern about data sharing and citation issues. Scott Collins noted that if this activity is important to the community, they will have to find a way to support it. NSF and other agencies prefer to provide developmental support; maintenance costs will have to come from the community itself, perhaps via membership and user or subscriber fees. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND RESEARCH NETWORK Chair Jim Gosz reported on the status of the National Environmental Monitoring and Research Network, which is being formed with residual money from the widely criticized and now defunct EPA/EMAP effort. The NEMR activity, which evolved out of an NAS committee evaluation of EMAP, proposes to use an all-agency effort (NPS, EPA, NSF, etc.) to develop a national capability to access national conditions and trends. He passed out a report on the initial meeting held in Washington, D.C. [when?], attended by Gosz and Bruce Hayden, which was a first attempt to draft an NEMR framework. The next meeting of the interagency committee (June) will be national in scope, and will be chaired by Jerry Melillo. Jim Gosz displayed a pyramid-shaped figure to illustrate the hierarchical approach being taken: Index Sites 100 LTER-like sites. This would be the research arm or branch where mechanistic understanding of the causes and effects of how systems function is explored. One objective would be first to identify these index sites (size not defined), then move up to a finer scale and more intensive research, using the results to understand trends at regional and continental scales. Regional Scale 1000 sites spread out over the country to monitor key indicator variables and identify trends, processes, and keystone species, etc. Continental Scale Complete or continuous spatial coverage of the entire country. Since LTER operate like index sites, the NEMR effort provides an opportunity to educate agency participants about the LTER Program and research component, and for LTER to play a lead role. The LTER concept was received favorably at the first meeting. Hayden and Gosz will continue to keep the LTER/CC informed, but also invited names of good candidates for participation in the next meeting, with enough lead time for adequate communication and education. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - April 26 OXFORD CONTRACT, continued The LTER/CC revisited the Oxford contract issue after having had the opportunity to review the language and terms recommended the previous day by Publications Committee chair Bruce Hayden. Hayden began the discussion by reporting that, in light of the issues raised by Oxford's new proposal regarding electronic publications, the EXEC recommended that a standard print contract with no electronic publications rights included be pursued. (A hand vote was taken and resulted in unanimous support.) The original contract allowed more flexibility and the opportunity to address this area as the implications of new technological developments become known. For example, LTER may want to use developing technologies to develop model animations and display model results. It was generally agreed that further delay in the contract negotiation process should be avoided to prevent possible impacts on existing Oxford site volume agreements. 1. A motion was advanced to authorize Bruce Hayden and Jim Gosz (LTER contract signatories) to negotiate a standard contract with Oxford based on the original document and consistent with site synthesis volumes now in effect. (The motion carried unanimously.) 2. A second motion was advanced that over the next six months Bruce Hayden and Jim Gosz would negotiate with Oxford to develop an addendum to the publications contract to cover electronic media and report back to the LTER/CC. (The motion carried unanimously.) Kay Gross (KBS) suggested that the ESA publications office be contacted to benefit from their recent comprehensive research into electronic publications issues. Bruce Hayden noted that any and all ideas and/or referrals that might help to move the effort along are welcome. Finally, he noted that Bill Lauenroth (SGS) had expressed some concerns about the quality of recent Oxford science publications, which hee was asked to share with the Publications Committee. NETWORK OFFICE PUBLICATIONS New Directories Stephanie Martin (NET) provided a brief review of the goals and objectives of the existing Network Office print and online publications program, including the categories of publications produced and/or picked up and added to form a numbered series at the request of the LTER/EXEC and CC in 1990. She distributed a new set of network slides (one per site) and a sample CD of the loaner slide set maintained at the Network Office, noting that a similar CD could be prepared for each of the sites at minimal cost and/or that the slide set images could be archived online. The images have been collected from a number of sources and, in some cases, prior permission would need to be approved for this use. The present Network Office budget includes funding for an updated personnel directory and an updated site directory, both of which were initially expected to include a section on international LTER sites. It was decided that the site directory will include U.S. LTER sites with maps showing other countries that have organized LTER efforts. Stephanie showed examples of the different approaches LTER has taken to site directories, from the original pamphlet-sized directory (1988) to the 1991 edition (with chapters on each site originally prepared for the 1991 All Scientists Meeting) to the present eight-page brochure to a "pocket-sized" model from another program. She recommended the last example as the most portable and versatile of these for a public information piece, as well as the least expensive for color production. After discussion, the group decided that as a first priority Stephanie should update the existing color brochure, which they agreed has been the most useful and versatile of existing program literature, and that at a later time--possibly under the new Network Office proposal--the possibility of preparing a pocket-sized booklet with additional information on the sites should be pursued. They also decided to rework the language describing the overal program. Information for an update of the Network personnel directory was recently requested by Rudolf Nottrott. As with past updates, once the process of collecting the additions and changes and entering them into the existing database is completed, Stephanie will produce a printed version and update the organizational information. Interim changes are made as they are submitted, so that the most current information is available online. The directory was initially intended for distribution just to personnel in the database but, by popular demand, the directories are now distributed in limited numbers outside LTER. Ray Smith (PAL) commented that, when his site joined the Network, he found the personnel directory to be the most useful introduction. Informal Publications In reviewing a recent request from Mark Harmon (AND) that the Network Office publish abstracts from a scientific exchange with Russian collaborators, the LTER/EXEC decided to change existing policy with regard to informal publications. They saw this request from an individual proposing that the Network Office publish material from an effort that was not initially Network-organized or endorsed as being qualitatively different from proposals received in the past. The request, along with the increased use of electronic publication, prompted the Committee to review the past policy with regard to printing and distributing informal reports through the Network Office. Chair Jim Gosz submitted the following policy language for LTER/CC approval: "Activities promoted, facilitated or otherwise supported by the Network are eligible for publication in summary form electronically. Hard copy publication is the responsibility of the PI unless specifically determined by the LTER Executive Committee." (The new policy was unanimously approved.) Jim Gosz directed the Publications Committee (Bruce Hayden and Stephanie Martin and possibly others) to develop a template to be used for informal publications selected for online distribution. SITE ACRONYMS (Background: Three-letter site acronyms drawn from full site names were developed and approved by the LTER/CC in 1989 in advance of the preparation of a complete Network personnel database and the establishment of the electronic mail forwarding system and electronic mail groups. They have been used as a shorthand reference for the sites in most Network-level activities and communications since.) Jim Gosz reported that the Network Office discovered that the Central Plains site had changed its name and acronym (to Shortgrass Steppe, SGS), impacting several Network databases and both print and online information developed and maintained by the Network Office. Noting that implementing such changes take time and expense, Gosz asked whether any other sites were considering such a change so that, if so, the necessary updating work could be completed at the same time for inclusion in the upcoming personnel directory update. No other sites reported considering a name change. Ray Bero (NET) will be implementing the change across the electronic networking system, and Stephanie Martin will implement changes in those areas of the Network Office web and gopher site she manages. SGS co-PI Bill Lauenroth informed the group how the change to SGS came about: The site recently increased its area nearly tenfold under its renewal proposal by agreement with the U.S. Forest Service and "Central Plains" was no longer accurate. They wanted to provide USFS and the Agricultural Research Service with the recognition they need, while moving from a place name with institutional implications to a more "biomic" name. INTERNATIONAL LTER (ILTER) Chair Jim Gosz reported that there are more opportunities for international exchange than the Network can handle. There has been a lot of activity on the ILTER front over the last several months, including recent exchanges with Czech scientists (who visited NSF and LTER sites) and Spanish, Portuguese and Moroccan scientists (an LTER-LMER contingent visited Iberian sites) illustrated the receptivity to the LTER model and the wide interest in forming LTER-like networks. He noted that the LTER model is an easy one to sell abroad because it tends to complement traditional science programs. It is to LTER's advantage as well when as a result of these efforts additional funds can be leveraged for ecological science in other countries, ultimately influencing NSF's perception of the success of the LTER Program. On a program level, these activities are a good way to get the rank and file directly involved in the LTER effort; on an individual level, the different perspectives participants obtain can prove very valuable to them professionally. The ILTER vision of a global LTER network may also include cooperation with broad interdisciplinary science efforts that include provision for cross-site synthesis, such as the Global Terrestrial Observation System (GTOS). UPCOMING INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES & EXCHANGES: May-June 1996--Puerto Rico, hosted by Luquillo LTER. Brazil is the biggest player among 13 participating countries who will meet to discuss the establishment of a regional connectivity station. Jim Gosz, Rudolf Nottrott and John Vande Castle will represent the U.S. LTER Network. November 1996--Costa Rica and Panama. Initial regional ILTER meeting. Jim Gosz, Jerry Franklin and Rudolf Nottrott will represent the U.S. LTER Network. January 1997--Chile Date tba--Mexico, jointly funded by NSF and CONYCIT [?]. There is still room for LTER participants. Those interested should contact Jim Gosz. Date tba--Japan (possibly including Mongolia), with funding from International Programs. Two Mongolian scientists are slated to tour LTER sites in May. Eight to 12 participants are presently being identified for the Japan trip. Those interested should contact Jim Gosz. Date tba--Brazil. NSF will provide funds for an LTER team to visit sites once they have been identified. Jim Gosz also reported that the funds originally earmarked for a trip to Poland were expensed during the Czech Republic visit, but that there still may be a later opportunity to visit Poland and Slovakia. BUDGET REDUCTION ANALYSIS & FUTURE STRATEGIES Scott Collins (NSF) provided more information on the recent site review preliminary to a discussion of the process. He noted that by design the panel included some of the same individuals as six years ago. Past discussions with the community and within NSF had shown the need to formalize and build consistency into the site review process. This round, panelists were instructed to look at the: 1) quality of science, 2) quality of data management, 3) infrastructure, and 4) site management. They were encouraged to visit relevant web sites. Collins solicited LTER/CC comment via electronic mail (sCollins@nsf.gov) as to what the criteria for future reviews should be, particularly from those sites just reviewed. (There may be additional site visits scheduled for the two augmented sites next year.) He suggested that sharing review comments might be helpful, but reminded the group that NSF may not provide copies of review comments to others. John Magnuson noted that North Temperate Lakes has posted its renewal proposal at its web site and that the other five sites recently reviewed may want to consider doing the same. Jim Gosz advised that it may be more beneficial to compile comments (including from the Network Office) following the upcoming site visit, and present a more formalized report to Mary Clutter. Collins noted that due to cost constraints NSF may have to cut the number of site reviewers in future. This has potential negative implications for sites placed on probation. It was decided that the LTER/EXEC will work with NSF to clarify this concern. Gosz reported the results of this year's survey of the sites for information on how they handled site budget reductions: Salaries PIs 40% Equipment 10% Students 25% Travel 5% Postdocs 15% M & S 5% He noted that this information is useful to make the point with NSF that further reductions have to come from the science programs at the sites. Another $20,000 will be lost due to inflation next year. The Network Office proposal was written at a 10% reduction, and the sites just reviewed had to project six years of flat funding in their proposals. Gosz asked the sites again to specify what the impacts are. Can they still adequately support the five core areas? If not, which four can they support? Perhaps a network-level effort to re-evaluate the five core areas should be undertaken. Ironically, at a time when the idea of a new urban site is in play, the innovations and new ideas have had to be the first to go at existing sites. It has become not just a question of which task to cut or eliminate, but which part of a person to cut. Collins urged the group to get this important message through to NSF, recommending that, without suggesting that a new site not be added, they might suggest bringing several sites up to enable the addition of an urban component. Jim Gosz noted that some sites already have social science pieces and that this may be the time to form an alliance with SBE. He suggested that the EXEC introduce the idea, providing examples from the augmented sites, when they next meet at NSF (tentatively January 1997). 1-800 NUMBER Chair Jim Gosz reminded the group that, as announced at past meetings, more money has been spent in support of the 1-800 LTERnet dial-up connection than was allotted in the Network Office budget and that, as a result, the number will soon be disconnected. This had become a fairness issue. Unfortunately, even after sites were presented with affordable site connection options, there have been cases of abuse, most recently by individuals formerly associated with LTER sites who have run up bills of as much as $2,000. Sites still needing assistance in selecting among the available options may contact Rudolf Nottrott (NET) for assistance. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS Graduate Student Committee Committee co-chair Reed Perkins (AND) reported the results of the most recent Student Travel Award supported through the Network Office budget. He noted that he had met with Chair Jim Gosz to better define and coordinate the process and procedure for obtaining and reporting on the awards. This time, just one proposal was received, although funding for three (at $1,500 each) was available. Perkins asked for the PIs' assistance in getting the word out about these awards to students at their sites, acknowledging that this competition had only been announced to students. The LTER/CC discussed possible solutions to the apparent declining awareness or interest among students. Perkins noted that most students do not identify with the Network, and that when he solicited comment to share at the meeting, there were few responses except that several lamented the demise of the all scientists meetings. The opportunity for students to meet at the annual ESA mixer provides the opportunity for social interaction, but little opportunity to learn about long-term ecological research. Jim Gosz noted that the entire Network laments the loss of the all scientists meetings, but that they were not popular with reviewers. The challenge remains to find a way to involve non-LTER scientists and correct past impressions in the larger community that they were expensive and clubbish. Peter Reich (CDR) suggested that perhaps fewer, more major awards allowing work that tied in with a student's thesis could be offered, and Jim Gosz responded that these awards were designed to provide travel support only for student intersite comparisons and that NSF does not favor the Network Office funding research. David Foster (HFR) reminded the group that some sites have site-based awards. Harvard Forest and the Shortgrass Steppe site, for example, both offer $3,000 annually. An idea suggested by John Magnuson (NTL) to develop a proposal for a topic-focused "traveling educational tour" for, say, five students to visit five counterpart sites was well received. Funding might be available from NSF's Education division or through special grants such as the Graduate Research Training Grant program. Magnuson offered the example of the student exchange program developed jointly by the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Magnuson) and the University of Washington (Bob Naiman) funded through GRTG: six students from each institution spend six months at the other institution to broaden their experience. Reed Perkins was asked to poll the student community for additional ideas and to report the results to the LTER/EXEC for possible action. Climate Committee Bruce Hayden distributed a preliminary proposal to use long-term climate data for a workshop on long-term reconstructions of past climate ecosystem interactions.. He invited comment via electronic mail (bHayden@LTERnet.edu). NSF SITE VISIT The Network Office proposal review team will visit both the University of New Mexico and SUNY Buffalo, NY. The UNM visit will be June 5-6 and Bruce Hayden (VCR), Bob Waide (LUQ), and Ray Smith (PAL) of the LTER/EXEC will participate. Other participants include Phil Robertson (KBS), John Vande Castle and Rudolf Nottrott (NET), John Porter (VCR), John Helly (San Diego SuperComputer Center) and James Brunt (Data Managers Committee chair, SEV), who will coordinate to present information on technical capabilities. NSF will use the review process to begin negotiation for a six-year cooperative agreement. The SUNY Buffalo group has strengths in environmental modeling and geography, spatial data and data archiving. Their only known connections to LTER are indirect (via Charles Driscoll, HBR and Bob Wharton, MCM). The relative strengths of the LTER/EXEC proposal include: it was written by representatives of the LTER community, not a foreign body; an intimate relationship exists between the sites and the existing Network Office; and the proposal leverages the resources and infrastructure support of three institutions (UNM, San Diego SuperComputing Center, University of Washington). Because there will be strong information management specialists on the panel, presenters are working to place more emphasis on the ability to handle information management and display, as well as organizational management. Jim Gosz thanked John Magnuson once again for coming up with the idea of having the LTER/EXEC write the proposal. Handouts: Climate workshop proposal (Hayden) FLED Report (2 vols.) (Gross) MEDEA Site Recommendations (Dreves) Palmer LTER reprint (Smith, et al. 1995. Oceanography 8(3):77-86) Palmer draft preface, AGU Antarctic Research Series book (R.M. Ross, E.E. Hofmann, L.B. Quetin, eds.) Proposed Oxford contract language changes (Hayden) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - submitted by Stephanie Martin, 5/15/96 approved by James Gosz, LTER/CC Chair From smartin@lternet.edu Tue May 14 18:07:59 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02511; Tue, 14 May 96 18:07:58 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa18678; 14 May 96 18:07 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11566; Tue, 14 May 96 15:00:24 PDT Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:00:23 -0700 (PDT) X-UIDL: 832128760.022 From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Omission, LTER/CC Minutes Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Please note an omission in the minutes I just sent out. Under the NSF report, "Program Oficer Candidates": Gaius Shaver (ARC) will begin a stint as a DEB program officer in 1996. (I omitted the year.) Stephanie Martin Network Office From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu May 30 19:00:43 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07080; Thu, 30 May 96 19:00:37 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa15455; 30 May 96 19:00 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA29563; Thu, 30 May 96 15:53:20 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA23723; Thu, 30 May 1996 16:54:39 -0600 Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 16:54:39 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: House Appropriations Subcommittee Marks Up FY97 Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Subject: House Appropriations Subcommittee Marks Up FY97 Bill ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: House Appropriations Subcommittee Marks Up FY97 Bill Author: jwidder at nsf3 Date: 5/30/96 12:47 PM Today the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies marked up the FY 1997 appropriations bill that contains funding for NSF, along with NASA, HUD, VA, EPA and numerous other federal agencies. For NSF, the subcommittee is recommending a total appropriation for FY 1997 of $3,253 million. This is $72 million below the request, but $33 million above the FY 1996 level. For research activities, the subcommittee's recommendation includes a total of $2,422 million, which represents a reduction of $50 million from the request, but an increase of $108 million or 4.7% above the FY 1996 level. Within this recommendation, the subcommittee makes clear the reduction is not to be taken from the academic research instrumentation initiative which was formerly funded out of the Academic Research Infrastructure account. Education and human resources is to be funded at $612 million, a $7 million reduction from the request but $13 million above the FY 1996 level. The major research equipment account which is to support the construction of unique large scale national research facilities is supported at $80 million which will be used to continue construction of the Laser Interfermeter Gravitational Wave Observatory and necessary safety improvements at South Pole Station in Antarctica. NSF's salaries and expenses account, which includes relocation reimbursement to GSA, is funded at the requested level of $134 million and the Office of Inspector General is funded at the requested level of $5 million. The bill includes a provision concerning supercomputer acquistions and a general provision which includes an across the board cut in all accounts in the bill of 1.32%. Full Committee mark up of the VA HUD appropriations bill is scheduled for June 13 with House floor action to follow soon thereafter. Additional details on the committee's mark up of the NSF section of the bill will be available after the committee's report is filed following full committee mark up. NSF FY95 FY96 FY97 FY97 FY97 FY97 FY97 ACCT Level Level Req HAuth HAppr SAppr CAppr RRA 2245 2314 2472 2380 2422 EHR 606 599 619 600 612 ARI 118 100 0 100 0 MRE 126 70 95 80 80 S&E/REL 129 132 134 125 134 OIG 4 5 5 5 5 Total 3227 3220 3325 3290 3253 RRA -- Research and Related Activities EHR -- Education and Human Resources ARI -- Academic Research Infrastructure MRE -- Major Research Equipment S&E -- Salaries and Expenses REL -- Relocation OIG -- Office of Inspector General From scollins@nsf.gov Thu May 23 10:09:46 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08027; Thu, 23 May 96 10:09:45 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa21131; 23 May 96 10:09 EDT Received: from mailman.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08713; Thu, 23 May 96 07:04:19 PDT Received: from xrelay.nsf.gov by mailman.nsf.gov with SMTP id AA14249 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 23 May 1996 10:05:33 -0400 Received: from cc:Mail by xrelay.nsf.gov id AA832871124; Thu, 23 May 96 10:04:53 EST Date: Thu, 23 May 96 10:04:53 EST X-UIDL: 832863141.000 From: scollins@nsf.gov Message-Id: <9604238328.AA832871124@xrelay.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Update on supplement panel and decisions Status: OR Hello, again. I wanted to provide a brief update on when the information would be available on the LTER supplement competition. Because of panels and travel, it is not possible for me to get the panel together before 18 June. Each supplement is being reviewed by five other program directors, plus me. Everyone seems to have a panel, a meeting, fieldwork, and site visits during the next three weeks. The earliest we can meet is the morning of June 18, and notification will be sent to all the sites that afternoon. I realize this is not a convenient schedule for those of you planning to use these funds for summer field work. I have tried on several occasions to schedule this panel, but many conflicts exist. Still, I think this delay is better than not having this opportunity. Nevertheless, I am sympathetic to the problems this causes for summer research and I apologize for helping to cause these problems. Once we make the decisions, however, we can push the money out of here pretty quickly. Scott From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jun 2 13:07:13 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14043; Sun, 2 Jun 96 13:07:11 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa14449; 2 Jun 96 13:06 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15542; Sun, 2 Jun 96 10:01:35 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06094; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 11:02:55 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00427; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 11:02:40 -0600 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 11:02:37 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #87 - 1995-96 Comparison of Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Comparison of FY95 - FY96 Appropriations Changes for Selected Agencies Now that the FY 1996 appropriations process is completed, more than six months after the beginning of the fiscal year, how did certain departments and agencies fare on current-year funding when compared with FY 1995? The table below shows, in rank order, the percent changes for selected programs, agencies and departments between FY 1995 and FY 1996: Selected Appropriations within VA/HUD/Independent Agencies: Department/Agency/Program: Percent Change in Appropriation: NSF Research & Related Activities +3.1% Veterans' Health Administration +2.0 Veterans' Affairs Total +1.7 NASA Space Station +1.4 NASA Science, Aeronautics & Technology +0.7 NASA Human Space Flight -1.1 NSF Education -1.2 NASA Total -3.3 NSF Total -4.2 EPA Total -9.9 FEMA Total -17.4 HUD -24.9 National Service Program -30.2 Other Selected Appropriations: DOE Basic Energy Sciences +5.9 DOE High Energy Physics +3.9 DOE Total -1.1 DOE Nuclear Physics -8.2 Department of Commerce Total -9.0 NIST -11.6 DOE Fusion Energy -34.5 ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sun Jun 2 13:07:13 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14044; Sun, 2 Jun 96 13:07:11 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa14482; 2 Jun 96 13:06 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15538; Sun, 2 Jun 96 10:00:03 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06079; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 11:01:23 -0600 Received: by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00422; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 11:01:07 -0600 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 11:01:07 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #88 - FY 1997 NSF Appropriation (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR House Appropriations Subcommittee Releases NSF Bill This morning, the House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its FY 1997 bill and sent it on to the full committee. The following is what is known about the National Science Foundation portion of the bill. For the agency as a whole, and in four major funding categories, the subcommittee provided less than the administration request, but more than the current budget. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION - TOTAL: The current FY 1996 budget is $3,220 million. The administration request was $3,325 million. The bill would provide $3,253 million for FY 1997. This is a reduction of $72 million, or 2.2%, from the request. This is an increase of $33 million, or 1.0%, above the current budget. NSF - RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES: The current FY 1996 budget is $2,314 million. The administration request was $2,472 million. The bill would provide $2,422 million for FY 1997. This is a reduction of $50 million, or 2.0%, from the request. This is an increase of $108 million, or 4.7%, above the current budget. NSF - EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES: The current FY 1996 budget is $599 million. The administration request was $619 million. The bill would provide $612 million for FY 1997. This is a reduction of $7 million, or 1.1%, from the request. This is an increase of $13 million, or 2.2%, above the current budget. NSF - MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT: (LIGO, South Pole Station Improvements) The current FY 1996 budget is $70 million. The administration request was $95 million. The bill would provide $80 million for FY 1997. This is a reduction of $15 million, or 15.8%, from the request This is an increase of $10 million, or 14.3%, above the current budget. NSF - ACADEMIC RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE: NSF folded this account into the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account. The subcommittee instructs NSF not to take any of the $50 million R&RA reduction from its instrumentation request. The full House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to consider this bill on June 13, with action by the full House shortly thereafter. Information on the NASA portion of the bill will be reported as it becomes available. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Jun 3 21:14:42 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18237; Mon, 3 Jun 96 21:14:40 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id ab22272; 3 Jun 96 21:14 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23116; Mon, 3 Jun 96 18:10:25 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA22186; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 19:11:43 -0600 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 19:11:43 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, biofac@algodones.unm.edu Subject: FYI #86 - FY96 Appropriations (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Results of FY 1996 Appropriations Process As the fiscal year 1997 appropriations process gets underway (see FYI #84), a look back at the results of the FY 1996 process might prove informative. FYI #87 will compare how well, or poorly, selected departments and agencies did, based on the percent change from FY 1995 to FY 1996 appropriations. Nearly seven months after the start of fiscal year 1996 on October 1, 1995, Congress and the President completed the last appropriations for the year. After several government shutdowns and 14 continuing resolutions to keep the government running, on April 26 President Clinton signed H.R. 3019, an omnibus bill that provided funding for all federal departments and agencies for which appropriations bills had not yet been passed. This bill included funding for NSF, NASA, and NIST. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: NSF received a total of $3.220 billion for FY 1996. This is a decrease of 4.2 percent from Clinton's FY 1996 request of $3.360 billion, and also a decrease of 4.2 percent from NSF's FY 1995 budget of $3.361 billion. Research and Related Activities (R&RA) within NSF received $2.314 billion for FY 1996, a decrease of 5.7 percent from the Administration's request of $2.454 billion, but a 3.1 percent increase from the FY 1995 R&RA budget of $2.245 billion. NSF Education programs received $599 million, equal to the President's request, and 1.2 percent below FY 1995 funding of $606 million. NASA: NASA received a total of $13.904 billion in the FY 1996 omnibus appropriations bill. This is a 2.5 percent reduction from the request of $14.260 billion, and a 3.3 percent reduction from the space agency's FY 1995 budget of $14.377 billion. Within NASA, Human Space Flight was funded at $5.457 billion for FY 1996, a decrease of 1.0 percent from the request of $5.510 billion and a 1.1 percent decrease from the FY 1995 appropriation of $5.515 billion. Within this account, the Space Station received $2.144 billion, an increase of 1.4 percent from the $2.115 billion request, and 1.1 percent from FY 1995 funding of $2.121 billion. Science, Aeronautics and Technology, the account which includes space science, received $5.929 billion. While this is a decrease of 1.3 percent from the request of $6.007 billion, it is a 0.7 percent increase over FY 1995 funding of $5.891 billion. NIST: Within the Department of Commerce, which was also funded under the omnibus bill, NIST received a total of $620 million for FY 1996. NIST funding was reduced significantly, dropping by 39.4 percent from President Clinton's FY 1996 request of $1,023 million, and by 11.6 percent from NIST's FY 1995 budget of $701 million. The NIST budget includes $221 million for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), intended to allow continued funding for multi-year grants awarded in previous years; many Republicans wanted to kill off ATP completely. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Funding for the Department of Energy was not provided in the omnibus bill; DOE's FY 1996 appropriations bill was signed on November 13, little more than a month after FY 1996 began. DOE received $15.390 billion for FY 1996. This is a decrease of 7.2 percent from the request of $16.583 billion, and a decrease of 1.1 percent from DOE's FY 1995 budget of $15.563 billion. Within DOE, High Energy Physics received $667.0 million. This is a decrease of 2.7 percent from the request of $685.6 million, but a 3.9 percent increase over the FY 1995 budget of $642.1 million. Nuclear Physics received $304.5 million for FY 1996. This is a 5.2 percent decrease from the request of $321.1 million, and an 8.2 percent drop from FY 1995 funding of $331.5 million. Fusion Energy, funded at $244.1 million for FY 1996, received one of the largest reductions of any science program. Its budget decreased 33.3 percent from the request of $366.1 million, and 34.5 percent from the FY 1995 budget of $372.6 million. Basic Energy Sciences received $791.7 million, a decrease of 2.4 percent from the request of $811.4 million, but a 5.9 percent increase over FY 1995 funding of $747.3 million. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Jun 3 22:18:04 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18332; Mon, 3 Jun 96 22:18:03 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id ab03516; 3 Jun 96 22:18 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23372; Mon, 3 Jun 96 19:13:25 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA22936; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 20:14:46 -0600 Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 20:14:46 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF funding programs Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Document Type: Program Guideline Title: NSF 96-102 RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATES PROGRAM (REU) File size (bytes): 46740 STIS Filename: nsf96102.txt Title: NSF 96-93 Antarctic Research Opportunities and Proposal Guide File size (bytes): 150005 STIS Filename: nsf9693.txt Title: NSF 96-99 MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION IN COST-REDUCING HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGIES File size (bytes): 17936 STIS Filename: nsf9699.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ** UPDATES TO EXISTING STIS DOCUMENTS ** Document Type: General Publication Title: NSF 95-138 -- Guide to Programs Chapter 1 File size (bytes): 40991 STIS Filename: ns95138b.txt File size (bytes): 1527 STIS Filename: mpslect.txt Document Type: Press Release Title: NSF WINS APPEAL TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY OF ITS PROPOSAL REVIEWERS File size (bytes): 3129 STIS Filename: pr9627.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOW TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS The above files can be retrieved in electronic form using the STIS system. If you don't know how to use STIS, send an E-mail message to stisinfo@nsf.gov (Internet). You will receive a copy of the STIS flyer via E-mail. If you are already using STIS, you can use the information above to retrieve these files: Documents via E-mail: Send a message to stisserve@nsf.gov (Internet). Use the "STIS Filename" shown above in the "get" command. For example, to retrieve pr9627.txt, the text of your message should be as follows: get pr9627.txt Anonymous FTP: FTP to stis.nsf.gov. Use the "STIS Filename" shown above to retrieve a file. For example, to retrieve pr9627.txt, you would enter: ftp> get pr9627.txt WAIS or Gopher: Do a word search on the filename as shown in the summary. If you want a *printed* copy of a document: Send your name and postal mailing address, and the document title and number to "pubs@nsf.gov" (Internet). If you have problems with the above procedures: Send a message to "stis@nsf.gov" (Internet). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jun 7 23:41:41 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA04733; Fri, 7 Jun 96 23:41:40 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa15803; 7 Jun 96 23:41 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16891; Fri, 7 Jun 96 20:36:55 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA18315; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 21:38:19 -0600 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 21:38:19 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: science meeting on LTER Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 15:29:10 -0400 From: Ashok.Lumb@cciw.ca REVISED CALL FOR PROPOSALS The Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN) will host the Third National Science Meeting at the Bessborough hotel, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan from January 21-25, 1997. The theme of the meeting is: "LONG-TERM TRENDS - CONSEQUENCES AND CAUSES" The meeting will focus on long-term and multi-disciplinary monitoring and research. The EMAN defines the environmental stresses affecting Canadian ecosystems, establishes scientific rationales for controls, evaluates the response of ecosystems to existing control programs and provides an early warning for new stresses. Program organizers are calling for proposals aimed at analysing long-term ecological monitoring data from different scientific disciplines. These findings should provide some explanations for changes by analysing the accumulated information from different parts of the ecosystem. We are looking for analysis of data sets not previously examined in detail or at least not in conjunction with other ecological information. Climate change, toxics, biodiversity, UV-B and primary productivity are priority topics. The interested contributors should submit a project proposal before June 30, 1996 and the Program Committee will select up to six projects and inform proponents by August 15th. The project would be given as an oral presentation (45 minutes each) at the meeting and submitted for subsequent publication. The criteria for the project(s) selection include multidisciplinary nature and the length of data records pertaining to the Canadian environment. The proposal of no more than 2 pages should include a description of the data sets to be examined and an outline of any theories to be tested or expected results can be sent preferably by Internet Email or on 3-1/2" diskette in WordPerfect format. (The organizers will consider funding requests for the development of the project and travel assistance to present the paper at the National Meeting). Direct your questions and summaries to: Ecological Monitoring Coordinating Office 867 Lakeshore Road, P.O.Box 5050 Burlington, Ontario, CANADA L7R 4A6 Tel: (905) 336 4413 Fax: (905) 336 4989 Email: ashok.lumb@cciw.ca From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Jun 11 21:18:51 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15144; Tue, 11 Jun 96 21:18:49 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa06120; 11 Jun 96 21:18 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06071; Tue, 11 Jun 96 18:14:41 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02136; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:16:08 -0600 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:16:07 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #92 - NASA Authorization Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NASA As passed by the House, the bill would authorize $13.5 billion for NASA. This represents a decrease of 2.9 percent from the FY 1996 appropriation of $13.9 billion, and of 2.2 percent from the FY 1997 request of $13.8 billion. The House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, in the mark-up of its FY 1997 appropriations bill, has tentatively given NASA $14.16 billion (although this number includes some outyears funding, making the effective FY 1997 appropriation $13.6 billion.) The VA/HUD subcommittee's figures may change based on finalization of the budget resolution. Walker's authorization bill would authorize full funding (equal to the FY 1997 request) for the space station ($1.80 billion), the space shuttle ($3.15 billion) and life and microgravity sciences ($499 million.) It would authorize about $1.03 billion for Mission to Planet Earth, a decrease of $260 million, or 20 percent, from the FY 1996 appropriation of $1.29 billion, and a decrease of $373.7 million, or 26 percent, from Clinton's request of $1.40 billion. On the floor, Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FLA) offered an amendment to increase the authorization for program management and personnel by $81.5 million, restoring it to the President's request level. The amendment specified that this increase would be offset by decreases in space science (by $60 million) and other accounts. Weldon's amendment was successful. However, it is important to note that even though it reduced the space science authorization from Walker's original version of the bill to about $2.1 billion, space science would still be authorized at approximately $250 million above President Clinton's request of $1.86 billion. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin is on record (see FYI #69) as saying he does not want such an increase. Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN), in what has become an annual ritual, offered an amendment to terminate the space station program. It failed on a vote of 127-286, and another Roemer amendment to cut the space station authorization by $75 million also failed. Also last week, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee - the counterpart of the House Science Committee - marked up its own version of an authorization bill specifically for NASA (S. 1839.) The Senate bill, sponsored by Senate Commerce Chairman Larry Pressler (R-SD), would authorize $13.7 billion for the space agency. According to a press release, Mission to Planet Earth, which Pressler considers NASA's "most relevant and important program," would receive an authorization of $1.4 billion, equal to the President's FY 1997 request. The space station would be authorized at $2.1 billion, and the shuttle at $3.1 billion. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Jun 11 21:20:40 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15154; Tue, 11 Jun 96 21:20:39 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa06699; 11 Jun 96 21:20 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06064; Tue, 11 Jun 96 18:13:10 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02113; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:14:37 -0600 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:14:36 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #91 - NSF Authorization Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 91: June 11, 1996 House Science Authorization Bill: NSF Provisions On May 30, with much partisan rhetoric and rancorous debate, the House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing many of the federal government's science programs. If enacted, the "Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996" (H.R. 3322) would set FY 1997 priorities and funding caps for NSF, NASA, NIST's in-house laboratories, NOAA, EPA's R&D programs, and others. It did not contain provisions for DOE R&D programs, reportedly due to intra-party disagreements among Republicans over energy funding priorities. In theory, authorization bills provide guidance to be used by appropriators when they fund federal programs. However, appropriators do not necessarily follow that advice, and this year the House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds NSF, has already marked up its bill. In addition, the Senate did not act on the House's science authorization bill last year and is not expected to act on this one. H.R. 3322 was sponsored by House Science Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) (see FYI #68 for details of the Science Committee's mark-up.) During floor debate, numerous amendments were offered. The Science Committee's Ranking Minority Member, George Brown (D-CA), offered a substitute for the Walker bill that would have brought the priorities and funding levels more in line with President Clinton's FY 1997 request. Brown's substitute was rejected, as were most Democratic amendments, as the votes fell mostly along party lines. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Walker's bill not only authorizes funding levels for NSF programs, but also contains the provision that the foundation must eliminate at least one of its directorates. Based on information that the House Appropriations Committee might provide additional funds to its subcommittees, Rep. Steven Schiff (R-NM) offered an amendment on the floor to increase the authorization for NSF's Research and Related Activities (R&RA) Account by $41.2 million. Schiff's amendment was approved by voice vote. Remarking that the bill cut NSF salaries and administrative expenses by more than $7 million below the FY96 level and $9 million below the President's request, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) offered an amendment to restore funding for these accounts to the level of the request, and to remove the provision eliminating one directorate. Her amendment was rejected. In the committee mark-up, the bill had been amended to change the name of NSF to the "National Science and Engineering Foundation." An amendment on the floor by Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) to restore the foundation's name to the "National Science Foundation" was successful by a vote of 339-58. Below are the authorization levels for NSF programs as passed by the House, in comparison with the President's request, current appropriations levels, and tentative FY 1997 appropriations as set by the House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. (*The VA/HUD numbers are preliminary at this point and may change based on finalization of the budget resolution.) H.R. 3322 FY 1997* Account Authoriz. FY96 FY97 Hse VA/HUD Name Level Approp. Request Approp. (in millions) NSF Total $3,290 3,220 3,325 3,253 Research & RA 2,380 2,314 2,472 2,422 Education 600 599 619 612 Major Equip. 80 70 95 80 Salaries/ 120 132 134 134 Expenses Academic Facilities Modernization, which the Administration folded into its request for R&RA, would be authorized at $100 million. Subsequent FYIs will provide the House authorization levels for NASA and NIST. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Jun 11 21:23:46 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15159; Tue, 11 Jun 96 21:23:45 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa07622; 11 Jun 96 21:23 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06082; Tue, 11 Jun 96 18:16:42 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02153; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:18:09 -0600 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:18:09 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #94 - Science Bill Debate (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Selections from the Debate: House Consideration of Science Bill On May 29 and 30 the House considered H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996. The following selections provide an impression of the debate: House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA): "We have made some tough choices in crafting this legislation. . . . The Committee on Science has decided to be relevant to the process. . . . those choices have not always been popular and they sure have not been easy. . . . The tenor of the policy debate has now changed within the Congress and the science community as the emphasis has shifted from industrial policy to basic research and from status quo subsidies to new knowledge." Rep. George Brown (D-CA): "The idea that we are somehow setting priorities is one of the most absurd fictions that we will be hearing from the other side today. . . . This legislation cuts science programs so deeply that it is actually an antiscience bill. . . . This distinction between basic and applied research is at the heart of the Republican proposal, and yet it is a distinction entirely without relevance [in] the real world." Rep. Steven Schiff (R-NM): "The science community needs to understand that the Republican[s] and Democrats in both the House and Senate, on both the Appropriations and Authorization Committees, have been supportive of basic research. Because Members understand that basic research is the economic foundation for our future, they have sheltered these programs when many others are being drastically reduced or eliminated altogether." Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN) on the space station: "If Members look at science and look at merit, this space station just does not pass the test of what hardworking American families will ask in terms of return on their tax dollars. It is not going to return good science." Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI): "...we are going through one of the annual rites of spring in Washington. The tulips bloom, the dogwoods become very beautiful, and the gentleman from Indiana introduces his amendment to kill the space station." Rep. Walker on an amendment to authorize ATP: "I think industrial policy science makes no sense. It in fact impedes our competitiveness. It does all the wrong things. It has us picking winners and losers in the marketplace. It does all the bad things in terms of how we want to proceed ahead with both research and development and the science of the country." Rep. John Tanner (D-TN): "...in behooves us all, government, industry, universities and Federal labs, to work together. That is exactly what these...programs do. They allow for industry to participate in blue sky research with the help of the Federal Government, so that if there is a technological breakthrough sometime down the line, American businesses will be able to take advantage of that in this worldwide marketplace." ##END########## From smartin@lternet.edu Tue Jun 18 20:00:56 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07424; Tue, 18 Jun 96 20:00:53 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa01970; 18 Jun 96 20:00 EDT Received: by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA23196; Tue, 18 Jun 96 16:53:37 PDT Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:53:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Cc: students@lternet.edu, southern@abello.dic.uchile.cl Subject: Program, Southern Connection Congress, Chile Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Please note the August and September deadlines - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROGRAM--II Southern Connection Congress Southern Temperate Biota and Ecosystems Past, Present and Future Valdivia, Chile 6-11 January, 1997 Organized by: Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia Congress Presidents Dra. Mary T. Kalin Arroyo Dr. Antonio Lara Departamento de Biologia Instituto de Silvicultura Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Austral de Chile Universidad de Chile Valdivia FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND REGISTRATION FORMS CONTACT Dr. Mary T. Kalin Arroyo President II Southern Connection Congress Fax 56(2) 271-9171; 56(2) 678-7331 E-mail: southern@abello.dic.uchile.cl Organizing Committee Dr. Mary T. Kalin Arroyo (President) Dr. Antonio Lara (President) Dr. Mirem Alberdi Dr. Juan J. Armesto Dr. Claudio Donoso Dr. Fabian Jaksic Dr. Oscar Parra Dr. Doris Soto Dr. Italo Serey Dr. Javier Simonetti Dr. Francisco Squeo Dr. Alberto Veloso Dr. Carolina Villgran Background Southern Connection is the result of a meeting held at the Bishop Museum, Honolulu, on May 25th, 1991. The aim of Southern Connection is to provide an avenue for communication among scientists, principally biologists, working on the biota and temperate ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere. SOUTHERN CONNECTION HAS RAPIDLY BECOME THE MOST IMPORTANT VENUE FOR INTERCHANGE AND THE DISCUSSION OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN TEMPERATE ECOSYSTEMS IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE Members of the Southern Connection Council are: Ebbe S. Nielsen (Australia) (Chairman) Thomas Veblen (USA - Vice-Chairman) Judy West (Australia) Mary T. Kalin Arroyo (Chile) Jorge V. Crisci (Argentina) Matt McGlone (New Zealand) Peter H. Raven (USA) The first Southern Connection Congress was held in 1993 in Hobart, Tasmania in conjunction with the Australian Systematic Botany Society of Australia and the Ecological Society of Australia and incorporated the second Nothofagus symposium The II Southern Connection Congress - Southern Temperate Biota and Ecosystems: Pastt, Present and Future - will be organized around special conferences, symposium topics, contributed papers and papers, and special sessions on the science-development-policy interface. These activities will be complemented with workshops, displays, field trips and cultural activities. The congress language is English. However, to encourage the participation of young Latin American graduate students, posters may be presented in Spanish, with an English abstract. The meeting will consider: A. Advances in research on southern temperate biota and ecosystems B. Comparions of science-based strategies for the sustainable use of resources C. Advances in the interface between pure research and development The main themes to be treated in the congress are: History of the southern continents and their biota - the past Ecosystem composition, structure and dynamics - the present Perspectives for conservation and sustainability - the future Contributed papers that describe the results of original scientific research in taxonomy, evolution, biogeography, history, ecophysiology, ecosystem dynamics, population, reproductive and community ecology of southern temperate ecosystems and biota will be accepted. While the congress will concentrate on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, contributed papers in marine biology are welcome. Table 1. Program structure: II Southern Connection Congress, Valdivia, Chile, 6-11 January 1997. Activity Number Speakers Full conferences 9 9 Symposia** 7 35 Special sessions 2 10 Contributed papers (oral and posters) * * Workshops and displays 5 * Field trips 2 3 * Dependent on the number of abstracts received. ** 5 invited speakers per symposium Contributed papers will be 15 minutes long with 5 minutes for discussion. Symposium papers will be 20 minutes long with 10 minutes for discussion. Posters may be presented in Spanish. However, an English summary will be required. DEADLINES: Final date for early registration and bookings for field trips is 31 August, 1996. Final date for reception of abstracts is 30 September, 1996 Around 350 persons have preregistered or enquired about the II Southern Connection congress to date. DETAILS OF PROGRAM OF INVITED SPEAKERS Names of persons who have accepted invitations to speak at the II Southern Connection Congress, and titles of their presentations are given below. As can be seen, all slots with the exception of one have been filled with essentially no definitive titles outstanding. A. INVITED LECTURES Conference speakers have been selected to provide overall reviews of theorical and empirical advances related to the general themes of the congress. A.1. Dr. Robert Hill Department of Plant Science University of Tasmania GPO Box 252C Hobart, Tasmania 7001 AUSTRALIA Long-term climate change and plant biodiversity in the Southern Hemisphere A.2. Dr. Calvin Heusser Professor Emeritus New York University 100 Clinton Road Tuxedo, NY 10987 USA Vegetation and paleoenvironments of southern Chile over the past 50,000 years. A.3. Dr. Exequiel Ezcurra Centro de Ecologia Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Mexico D.F Mexico A.4. Dr. Mark Chase Jodrell Laboratory Royal Botanic Gardens Kew Richmond, Surrey TW9 3DS UNITED KINGDOM Biogeographic patterns of Lilianae: Gondwaland versus other patterns A.5. Dr. Gene E. Likens Institute of Ecosystems Studies Box AB, Millbrook, New York, USA Discovering long-term changes in ecosystem structure and function A.6. Dr. Jerry Franklin College of Forest Resources Box 352100 University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195-2100 USA Conservation in the Matrix A.7. Dr. Steward Pickett Institute of Ecosystems Studies New York, USA The flux of nature: Changing views of ecology and resource management A.8 . Dr. Harold Mooney Department of Biological Sciences Stanford University, Stanford, USA Global change ecological impacts: North versus South A.9. Dr. Bernabe Santelices Departamento de Ecologia Pontificia Universidad Catolica Santiago, Chile. Problems of individuality in marine algas (tentative title) B. SYMPOSIA Symposia have been organized so as to present recent advances in topics relevant to Southern Connection. Each symposium will consist of five presentations from invited speakers. B.1. SYMPOSIUM 1 Quaternary paleoclimates in southern temperate regions Organizers: Dr. Carolina Villagran, Departamento de Biologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile and Dr. Vera Markgraf, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA B.2. SYMPOSIUM 2 Past and present biota from southern South America: A model of historical biogeography Organizers Dr. Rosendo Pascual and Dr. Jorge Crisci, Museo de la Plata, La Plata, Argentina B.3. SYMPOSIUM 3 Key issues in forest ecosystem function and sustainability Organizer: Dr. Juan Armesto, Departamento de Biologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile B.4. SYMPOSIUM 4 Impact of plant and animal invasions in southern temperate areas Organizer: Dr. Eduardo Rapoport, Universidad del Comahue, Bariloche, Argentina B.5. SYMPOSIUM 5 Approaches to conservation in southern temperate biota and ecosystems Organizers: Dr. Pablo Marquet , Departmento de Ecologia, Pontificia Universidad Catolica, Santiago, Chile and Dr. Francisco Squeo, Departmento de Biologia, Universidad de La Serena, La Serena B.6. SYMPOSIUM 6 Plant/animal interactions in southern temperate areas Organizador: Dr. Mary Willson, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Junea, Alaska B.7. SYMPOSIUM 7 Comparative Fire Ecology of Southern Temperate Forest Ecosystems Organizador: Dr. Thomas Veblen, Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder Colorado, USA. C. SPECIAL SESSIONS C.1 SPECIAL SESSION 1 The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Conservation and the Science-Policy Interface Organizers: Dr. Tony Norton, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia and Dr. Mary T. Kalin Arroyo, Departamento de Biologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile C.2 SPECIAL SESSION 2 Tools and on-going initiatives for achieving conservation and sustainability in southern temperate forests in Chile Organizers: Dr. Mary T. Kalin Arroyo, Departmento de Biologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile and Dr. Antonio Lara, Instituto de Silvicultura, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile D. WORKSHOPS D.1 Ecological connectivity, interactions and collaboration on ecological issues Organizer: Dr. James Gosz, Chairman, U.S. LTER Network, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA E. EXPOSITIONS E. 1. Instituto de Investigaciones Ecologicas de Chile Organizer: Carlos Sabag, Departamento de Biologai, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile E.2. Exposicion de pinturas de la Flora Nativa of Chile Expositor: Sergio Moreira E. 3. Published book display (Publishers and authors will be invited to display books for order and sale). E.4. Scientific Equipment (Vendors will be invited to display scientific equipment). F. FIELD TRIPS F1 . All-congress, one day field trip Organizer: Dr. Antonio Lara, Instituto de Silvicultura, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia F.2. Six day, transAndean field trip Organizers: Dr. Antonio Lara, Instituto de Silvicultura, Universidad Austral de Chile y Dr. Thomas Veblen, Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA From scollins@nsf.gov Wed Jun 19 15:28:12 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02441; Wed, 19 Jun 96 15:28:11 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa10430; 19 Jun 96 15:28 EDT Received: from amber.nsf.gov by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA29337; Wed, 19 Jun 96 12:15:53 PDT Received: from x2relay.nsf.gov (x2relay.nsf.gov [128.150.195.90]) by amber.nsf.gov (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA17749 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:17:21 -0400 (EDT) From: scollins@nsf.gov Received: from ccMail by x2relay.nsf.gov (SMTPLINK V2.11 PreRelease 4) id AA835222639; Wed, 19 Jun 96 15:16:07 EST Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 15:16:07 EST Message-Id: <9605198352.AA835222639@x2relay.nsf.gov> To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Annual Reports Status: OR I realize you are all eager to submit your annual reports to prepare for the 1997 increment of your LTER funding. Please be patient a bit longer, and do not send a report yet. I am in the process of developing the brief guidelines, and I want the reports to be reasonably short. There is some specific information I will be requesting, however. I am waiting for Polly Penhale's comments on this before I send it to everyone. SGS (aka Pawnee, aka CPER), Konza, NTL, Andrews, Coweeta and Palmer do not need to send in annual reports. Those sites will either need to send in a final project report, or notify NSF regarding no-cost extensions on their current awards. I'll get the guidelines out as soon as I hear from Polly. Scott From janderso@jornada.nmsu.edu Thu Jun 20 17:39:21 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02240; Thu, 20 Jun 96 17:39:19 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa20653; 20 Jun 96 17:39 EDT Received: from bubba.NMSU.Edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA08010; Thu, 20 Jun 96 14:36:52 PDT Received: from NMSU.Edu by bubba.NMSU.Edu (8.6.10/NMSU) id PAA28295; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:41:23 -0600 Received: from JORNADA by NMSU.Edu (8.6.10/NMSU-1.18) id PAA07266; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:38:24 -0600 Received: from JORNADA/SpoolDir by JORNADA (Mercury 1.21); 20 Jun 96 15:35:05 MST Received: from SpoolDir by JORNADA (Mercury 1.21); 20 Jun 96 15:34:43 MST From: John Anderson Organization: Jornada LTER To: dman@lternet.edu, pi@lternet.edu Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:34:42 MST Subject: Jornada name change Reply-To: janderso@nmsu.edu X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-Id: <723EBC27A7@JORNADA> Priority: A Status: OR At some point in the historic past of the Jornada LTER site, we became known as the "Jornada Experimental Range." I am not sure at what point or level this was first instituted at our end, but this title is a misleading one as the Jornada LTER conducts research on both the Chihuahuan Desert Rangeland Research Center (formerly known as the NMSU College Ranch) and the USDA Jornada Experimental Range. Having talked to Bill Schlesinger, our Project Coordinator, we would like to have all occurrences of "Jornada Experimental Range" that refer to the Jornada LTER site changed to "Jornada Basin." This is more in line with the physical range of our studies and will reduce confusion of political identities on the Jornada. I hope this doesn't create too much of a problem, but we would be most appreciative. Thank you in advance! Best wishes, John Anderson =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= John P. Anderson New Mexico State University Department of Biology Box 30001/Dept. 3AF Las Cruces, NM 88003-0001 voice: 505-646-5818 fax: 505-646-5665 email: janderso@nmsu.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Success lies in doing not what others consider to be great, but what you consider to be right. ---John Henry Gray From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jun 21 01:19:17 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03847; Fri, 21 Jun 96 01:19:15 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa18117; 21 Jun 96 1:19 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09299; Thu, 20 Jun 96 22:10:49 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA03393; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:12:22 -0600 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:12:22 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #97 - NSF Appropriation (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 97: June 20, 1996 House Appropriations Committee Report Language: NSF Accompanying H.R. 3666, the FY 1997 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill is a committee report (104-628.) This report, will not carrying the full force of law, provides strong guidance about how FY 1997 funding is to be spent by the National Science Foundation. It also provides an explanation of the committee's recommendations. Selections from the report language pertaining to NSF follow. See FYI #88 for specific budget numbers. RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES: H.R. 3666 provides $2,422.0 million. This is $108.0 million above the current budget, but $50.0 million less than the administration's request. "The Committee recommendation includes approval of the National Science Foundation proposal to include within the Research and Related Activities account, $50,000,000 for acquisition of instrumentation which was previously funded in the Academic Research Infrastructure account. Taking into consideration the increase to this account caused by the transfer of instrumentation funds, the remaining increase of $108,000,000 would have represented a growth of approximately 5% over the fiscal year 1996 level. While this is not an excessive amount of growth, and while the Committee remains a strong supporter of scientific research, the Committee cannot fund the budget request within its current allocation of budget authority and outlays. The reduction recommended by the Committee is taken without prejudice and is to be allocated by the Foundation in accordance with internal procedures, subject to approval by the Committee." MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT: H.R. 3666 provides $80.0 million. This is $10.0 million above the current budget, but $15.0 million less than the administration's request. "The Committee recommendation for LIGO funding [$55 million] is the same amount that was projected as a fiscal year 1997 requirement when the fiscal year 1996 budget was presented to the Congress. The amount recommended is $15.0 million below the request in the fiscal year 1997 budget, but based upon information provided with the fiscal year 1996 budget and briefings provided by the program managers the reduction should have no effect on the program schedule. Citing the recent National Science and Technology Council report on the Antarctic (see FYI#82), the committee report language states: "The Committee acknowledges the conclusions contained within the report and provides $25,000,000 for correcting critical health, safety, and environmental issues at the current South Pole station while awaiting further information from the NSF on how it will structure a long-term solution to the problems of the current station. The Committee recommends that the funds provided be used for the heavy maintenance facility, power plant upgrade, and fuel storage facilities." ACADEMIC RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE: "The Committee agrees with the President's budget proposal to transfer the instrumentation portion of this program to the Research and Related Activities account and provide no funding for buildings and facilities." EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES: H.R. 3666 provides $612.0 million. This is $13.0 million above the current budget, but $7.0 million less than the administration's request. "The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of $2,000,000 in the grants for graduate fellowships and $5,000,000 from undergraduate curriculum development." Systemic Initiative: NSF "has made considerable progress with its state, urban, and rural systemic initiatives designed to promote reform of K-12 math and science education. Early results show significant math and science student achievements in NSF funded sites. The Committee believes each program should be sustained as appropriate and in particular, the Urban Systemic Initiative should be fully funded in fiscal year 1997." Advanced Technological Education Program: "The Committee is pleased that the Foundation has forged effective partnerships with the relevant local scientific and technical business sector to further expand the scope and significance of the program. The Committee encourages continued growth of this important activity." Teacher Preparation: "...the Committee strongly urges" NSF "to strengthen and significantly expand its math and science teacher preparation programs." Technology Education: NSF "is urged to increase its investments in research and development that undergird learning technologies and their application in math, science, engineering, and technology education sites at the K-12, two year and community colleges, and undergraduate levels." EPSCoR: "The Committee is pleased" with NSF's EPSCoR, and makes a number of specific recommendations about the future direction of its program. Informal Science Education: "The Committee is concerned with the nearly 28% reduction in funding for Informal Science Education. In many instances, science education received through exposure to museums, parks, libraries, television and community groups is the most important spark to stimulate greater interest in science. The Committee has not been able to add money to this account, but encourages the National Science Foundation to reevaluate the priorities which caused the current sub-allocation of Education and Human Resources funding to determine if the cut of 28% in this program is justified." ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Jul 12 21:35:03 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08737; Fri, 12 Jul 96 21:35:02 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa04031; 12 Jul 96 21:34 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01026; Fri, 12 Jul 96 18:32:13 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09917; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:33:59 -0600 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:33:59 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, biofac@algodones.unm.edu Subject: FYI #106 - Assessing Basic Research (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Role of Peer Review in Assessing the Value of Basic Research Reaffirmed "Dominant reliance on quantitative measures...will at best distort assessments and more likely will prove destructive as research proposals and funding decisions are optimized for the measures rather than for the best and most exciting science." --Richard Zare, Stanford University These days, federal agencies are under increased pressure from Congress and the Administration to ensure that federal programs provide value to the American public for every dollar paid in taxes. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) is one attempt to encourage accountability. It calls for federal agencies to develop, by the end of fiscal year 1997, multi-year strategic plans and metrics for assessing progress toward agency goals. Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) of the House Science Committee on July 10 invited representatives from government and industry to discuss the challenge of evaluating the programs of civilian agencies that perform or fund basic science research. This is research for which, according to the committee's hearing "the primary goal is to produce new knowledge, with long-term and, frequently, unpredictable outcomes." While the witnesses were unanimous in agreeing upon the value of GPRA to help prioritize and manage federal research efforts, they concurred that performance in basic research cannot be evaluated strictly by quantitative measurements. Richard Zare of Stanford University (and incoming chairman of the National Science Board) reported that recent efforts by the National Research Council to quantitatively measure various aspects of scientific research "produced a negative result. That is, we were unable to use reliably and with any confidence quantitative measures to assess the health of a field.... Our work very much affirmed this Committee's observation that `quantitative measures may not be feasible for basic research.'" Alternatively, the witnesses stressed that the best method of assessing the quality and value of long-term fundamental research was through the judgment of independent panels of experts - in essence, merit-based peer review. Representatives from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, NASA, NIST, NOAA and EPA described how they used peer review panels or external advisory committees to prioritize and evaluate research programs. All emphasized the importance of GPRA language allowing flexibility if, as stated in the hearing charter, "it is not feasible to express performance goals in an objective, quantifiably measurable form." Ernest Moniz, the Office of Science and Technology Policy's Associate Director for Science, described efforts by the Administration "aimed at laying a common foundation for assessing fundamental science programs." Because of the difficulty in determining the ultimate benefit to the nation from a research investment, Moniz suggested that the government use an intermediate, or enabling, goal for the purposes of measurement: "leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge." This goal ensures that the U.S. is positioned, he said, "to capitalize on scientific advances anywhere" in the world, in order to benefit from those advances. Moniz, too, reiterated that "merit review based on peer evaluation must remain the primary vehicle for assessing the excellence and conduct of science at the cutting edge." From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Aug 6 13:02:19 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA03949; Tue, 6 Aug 96 13:02:17 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa11429; 6 Aug 96 13:02 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA10795; Tue, 6 Aug 96 09:57:55 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA06631; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:57:02 -0600 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:57:02 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: new centers for global change Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Media contact: August 6, 1996 George Chartier NSF PR 96-40 (703) 306-1070/gchartie@nsf.gov Program contact: Cheryl Eavey (703) 306-1729/ceavey@nsf.gov NSF AWARDS $16.8 MILLION TO STUDY HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL CHANGE What are the results -- both good and bad -- when humans and their environment interact? Six research centers and teams of scientists, assisted by $16.8 million from the National Science Foundation (NSF), will study such complex interactions and seek some useful answers. Population growth, environmental changes, natural resources, public health, technological advances, social organizations, and political and economic shifts are among critical factors, says Cheryl Eavey, who coordinates NSFs Human Dimensions of Global Change research program. By combining research in the natural and the social sciences, we hope to discover ways to better predict the impact of changes on populations and their environment. The six new NSF awards are: 7 $6.3 million over five years to Indiana University to establish a Center for the Study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change. The focus is a long-term study of how institutions and humans at the household and community level affect deforestation and replacement. Under the direction of anthropologist Emilio F. Moran and political scientist Elinor Ostrom, studies will employ satellite and aerial photo data, data bases, surveys and interviews. Media contact: Jeff Austin (812) 855-3911 7 $5.8 million over five years to Carnegie Mellon University to support its Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Engineers M. Granger Morgan and Hadi Dowlatabadi will coordinate activities of more than 30 researchers from 14 institutions in seven nations. The center will provide a framework for integrated analysis, foster educational services for citizen groups and schools, promote worldwide discourse on global change issues among researchers and the public, encourage collaboration between social and natural scientists, and improve data analysis. Media contact: Debra Jacob (412) 268-8495 7 $1.9 million over five years to Harvard University to support studies of societal responses to large, long-term global environmental change. Under the leadership of the University Committee on the Environment, the project will involve scholars from Carnegie Mellon, Cornell and Duke universities and from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. They will examine how assessments of global change interact with policymaking, politics and negotiations, and how to improve the process. Media contact: Steve Singer (617) 495-1115 7 $1.6 million over five years to Pennsylvania State University to support its Methods for Integrated Regional Assessment Project under the direction of geographer C. Gregory Knight in the Earth System Science Center. In collaboration with researchers at the University of Arizona, the project will develop methods to assess regional consequences of global change. Media contact: Andrea Elyse Messer (814) 865-9481 7 $999,600 over five years to the University of Arizona, for an economics study of water allocation. Economist Vernon L. Smith will direct research on environmental change and adaptive smart markets, especially in arid lands. He will initially apply his trade model in California. Media contact: Julieta Gonzalez (520) 626-4336 7 $985,000 over five years to the National Bureau of Economic Research, to work with the Yale Center for Global Change and Austrias International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, to organize conferences and workshops designed to encourage domestic and international cooperative research on human dimensions of global change. Economist William D. Nordhaus will oversee the development of the project. Media contact: Gila Reinstein (203) 432-1325 -NSF- From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Aug 7 21:33:28 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA08233; Wed, 7 Aug 96 21:33:24 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa04034; 7 Aug 96 21:33 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20747; Wed, 7 Aug 96 18:30:11 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA07570; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 19:29:18 -0600 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 19:29:17 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #121 - Important Funding Decisions (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Congress in Recess; Important Funding Decisions Await September Action Major science funding bills await final action when Congress returns from its recess on September 3. Appropriations bills for the National Science Foundation, NASA, Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology are in various stages of completion; all of them face a September 30 deadline. With Congress anxious to wrap-up the session to allow Members to campaign, recent passage of several high-profile bills, and aversion to any shutdown of the government, Congress stands ready to pass a catch-all funding bill. This continuing resolution would provide either six or twelve months of funding (yet to be decided) for any department or agency for which a regular appropriations bill is not signed. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) intends to move this bill the week of September 9 -- just days after Congress returns. While assuring funding for these departments and agencies, this stopgap mechanism would have negative impacts as described below. Here is where things stand: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: The House passed its version of H.R. 3666, the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, in June (see FYIs #102, 103.) The full Senate did not have time to consider its own Appropriations Committee bill (see FYI #108) before going on its recess. Where there is a difference in various NSF budget levels, the Senate version is higher. A notable difference between the two bills is the amount provided for NSF's salaries and expenses. The House bill sliced this budget by $9.1 million over the amount needed to maintain the current level of effort. Concern has been expressed about NSF's ability to manage its operations under this reduced budget. A continuing resolution would result in less money in all budget categories as compared to either the House or Senate bill, and raises the possibility of a mid-year disruption of funding in 1997. NSF proponents are urging that senators be contacted to request quick Senate action on H.R. 3666. Following Senate action, a conference committee must be appointed to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, with a final vote then held in each chamber. Time is running out for NSF and NASA (see below.) NASA: NASA funding is also contained in H.R. 3666, and so it is facing the same problems that were described above for NSF. The current Senate committee bill provides $100 million more for Science, Aeronautics, and Technology (SA&T) than the House-passed bill, with Human Space Flight and Mission Support funding being equal to the House bill. Both versions provide less over-all money for NASA in FY 1997 than the current year (see FYI #107.) If a continuing resolution is passed in lieu of H.R. 3666, the potential $100 million in additional SA&T funding will be lost. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Both the House and Senate have passed H.R. 3816, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (see FYI #120), bringing this bill one step closer to completion. However, the two versions of this bill are $887 million apart (largely due to more funding for nuclear weapons research and cleanup programs), and no one is predicting how this difference will be resolved. As detailed in FYIs #109 - 112, funding for Fusion, Basic Energy Sciences, and General Science & Research Activities is higher in the Senate bill than the House bill. The Clinton Administration has problems with this legislation, and a veto threat has been made. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY: The House has passed H.R. 3814, the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill. The full Senate has not yet considered this bill. As it now stands, the Senate Appropriations Committee's bill slashes the President's request for the Advanced Technology Program to $60 million. This is one-sixth the requested level, and about one-half the amount that the House provided for ATP. Current year funding is $221 million. Subcommittee chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH), who showed no enthusiasm for ATP at a hearing last May (see FYI #78) apparently has not had any change of heart, saying that ATP is "nothing more than corporate welfare." Adding that the Fortune 500 companies receiving ATP funding "can do their own research," Gregg indicated that he will not be swayed to support a higher level of funding. The Office of Management and Budget has indicated the entire $28.8 billion bill could be vetoed because of the ATP funding level. If Commerce Department funding is included in a continuing resolution because a regular appropriations bill is not signed into law, ATP funding could be as low as $60 million for FY 1997. From smartin@lternet.edu Mon Sep 2 22:03:17 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14872; Mon, 2 Sep 96 22:03:15 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa24911; 2 Sep 96 22:03 EDT Received: from localhost by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15596; Mon, 2 Sep 96 18:32:54 PDT Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:32:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephanie Martin X-Sender: smartin@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Intersite 15N experiment planned Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Please forward to appropriate stream scientists at your site. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INTERSITE 15N ADDITION EXPERIMENT PLANNED A group of stream ecologists is beginning an intersite comparative study involving 6-week additions of 15N-labeled NH4 at tracer levels to 9 streams across the United States to determine N uptake, retention, and cycling and food web linkages in streams. Collaborative studies by interested scientists are welcome and encouraged. The 15N additions will be performed in Upper Ball Creek, NC (Coweeta LTER), Walker Branch, TN (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), Sycamore Creek, AZ (Arizona State University), Bear Brook, NH (Hubbard Brook LTER), Gallina Creek, NM (Sevilleta LTER), Quebrada Bisley, Puerto Rico (Luquillo LTER), South Kings Creek, KA (Konza LTER), Smith Creek, MI (Kelogg LTER), and Mack Creek, OR (Andrews LTER). The first experiment is to begin in Upper Ball Creek in November 1996, and identical experiments in the other streams will be staged over the ensuing two year period. Several ancillary experiments are planned at each stream in addition to the 15N additions including: conservative tracer injections to determine hydraulic characteristics, short-term nutrient injections to determine nutrient uptake lengths, periphyton nutrient limitation assays, and whole-stream measurements of metabolism using the upstream-downstream diurnal oxygen change technique. Collaborative studies that might enhance the value of the planned experiments are encouraged, although funding for such studies must be obtained by the collaborating scientists. For more information, contact one of the following: Jack Webster (jwebster@vt.edu), Pat Mulholland (jdn@ornl.gov), Bruce Peterson (peterson@lupine.mbl.edu), or Judy Meyer (meyer@sparc.ecology.uga.edu). From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Sep 3 10:05:37 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA16678; Tue, 3 Sep 96 10:05:33 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa11837; 3 Sep 96 10:05 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA17393; Tue, 3 Sep 96 07:04:32 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA24092; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:03:51 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:03:51 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: fyi Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR OCEAN SEDIMENTS CONTAIN RECORD OF PAST VEGETATION FIRES IN AFRICA May Provide Link to 'Missing' Carbon Ocean sediments contain a record of past vegetation fires, called biomass burning by scientists -- and this record shows much more past burning, at least in Africa during the Pleistocene era, than researchers expected. National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded marine geologists David Verardo and William Ruddiman of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville have found in their research on ocean sediments the first detailed marine record of late Pleistocene era fires on land. Their paper, "Late Pleistocene charcoal in tropical Atlantic deep-sea sediments: Climatic and geochemical significance," appears in the September issue of the journal GEOLOGY. Biomass burning, a result of fires started by lightning strikes, is important for its relationship to climate (drier climates have more burning) and its immense effect on vegetation, and therefore land ecosystems, says Connie Sancetta, program director in NSF's marine geology and geophysics program, which funded Verardo's research along with NSF's climate dynamics program. The burning of trees and grasses on land produces charred particles, or charcoal. Charcoal may then be transported long distances by winds and rivers to coastal and ocean environments, where it's then preserved in ocean sediments. Explains Verardo, "Charcoal may be swept aloft in plumes rising from active fires, and transported by prevailing winds from the source area to the ocean within days to weeks of its initial formation. It eventually sinks and becomes part of the sediments at the bottom of the sea." Verardo studied such sediments by analyzing a core taken from the bottom of the eastern tropical Atlantic Ocean. "It was full, much to my surprise, of a large amount of charcoal," he says. "Given the great distance to land and the regional slope of the sea floor, the charcoal in this core must have been brought there by winds." The charcoal is a mixture of particles from both rainforest and savanna trees, as well as grasslands. Research on modern-day air mass routes for the eastern tropical Atlantic region indicates that the sediment in the core lies below several large-scale circulation pathways originating in Africa. Says Sancetta, "Verardo's work is important because he has uncovered a record of burning that goes beyond historical records, so we can study natural burning before human influence." This in turn will help scientists determine whether human-induced burning has different effects than natural burning, and how burning is related to changes in ecology, and perhaps evolution, on longer time scales. "Another implication of Verardo's work," adds Sancetta, "is that if a lot of the carbon [charcoal] in ocean sediments is terrestrial in origin, then it isn't marine in origin. And scientists have been studying the marine record as a major place to find out about past carbon dioxide changes. If they've been making the wrong assumptions about how much marine carbon is involved, then their estimates about carbon dioxide in the oceans may be wrong." Current models have not been able to determine exactly how the total amount of carbon on earth is distributed. According to Verardo, "This new data sheds much-needed light on where the 'missing' carbon may lie: in ocean-bottom sediments laden with charcoal from fires on land. -NSF- NSF is an independent federal agency responsible for non- medical research in all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of about $3 billion. NSF receives more than 50,000 requests for funding annually, including at least 30,000 new proposals. ** News releases and tipsheets are available electronically on NSFnews. To subscribe, send an e- mail message to listmanager@nsf.gov. In the body of the message, type "subscribe nsfnews" and then type your name. For more guidance, send a "help" message to listmanager@nsf.gov. Also see the NSF Home Page (http:// www.nsf.gov), under News of Interest. From adub@lternet.edu Tue Sep 3 12:40:07 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA17418; Tue, 3 Sep 96 12:40:04 EDT Received: from lternet-t3.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa20635; 3 Sep 96 12:39 EDT Received: from localhost by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA18520; Tue, 3 Sep 96 09:37:49 PDT Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:37:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Adrienne Whitener X-Sender: adub@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Forwarded mail.... Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 15:11:36 +0600 From: Jack Webster To: Office@lternet.edu Cc: jdn@ornl.gov Could you please see that the following announcement is sent to all LTER sites for distribution to approiate stream scientests. Thanks, Jack INTERSITE 15N ADDITION EXPERIMENT PLANNED A group of stream ecologists is beginning an intersite comparative study involving 6-week additions of 15N-labeled NH4 at tracer levels to 9 streams across the United States to determine N uptake, retention, and cycling and food web linkages in streams. Collaborative studies by interested scientists are welcome and encouraged. The 15N additions will be performed in Upper Ball Creek, NC (Coweeta LTER), Walker Branch, TN (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), Sycamore Creek, AZ (Arizona State University), Bear Brook, NH (Hubbard Brook LTER), Gallina Creek, NM (Sevilleta LTER), Quebrada Bisley, Puerto Rico (Luquillo LTER), South Kings Creek, KA (Konza LTER), Smith Creek, MI (Kelogg LTER), and Mack Creek, OR (Andrews LTER). The first experiment is to begin in Upper Ball Creek in November 1996, and identical experiments in the other streams will be staged over the ensuing two year period. Several ancillary experiments are planned at each stream in addition to the 15N additions including: conservative tracer injections to determine hydraulic characteristics, short-term nutrient injections to determine nutrient uptake lengths, periphyton nutrient limitation assays, and whole-stream measurements of metabolism using the upstream-downstream diurnal oxygen change technique. Collaborative studies that might enhance the value of the planned experiments are encouraged, although funding for such studies must be obtained by the collaborating scientists. For more information, contact one of the following: Jack Webster (jwebster@vt.edu), Pat Mulholland (jdn@ornl.gov), Bruce Peterson (peterson@lupine.mbl.edu), or Judy Meyer (meyer@sparc.ecology.uga.edu). *********************************************************** Jackson R. Webster Dept. of Biology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 USA Tel: (540) 231-8941 ************************************************************ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Sep 10 19:45:13 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06954; Tue, 10 Sep 96 19:44:59 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa24237; 10 Sep 96 19:44 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA07523; Tue, 10 Sep 96 15:19:51 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA20510; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:19:10 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:19:10 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #133 - DOE Elimination Hearing (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR DOE Opponents Make No Headway in Senate Hearing Will abolishing the $16 billion-per-year Department of Energy have an impact on deficit reduction? Members of Congress and witnesses debated this at a September 4 hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which focused on proposed legislation to eliminate the department. The consensus among most witnesses and committee members, on both sides of the aisle, seemed to be - no. While it was agreed that DOE had an unwieldy bureaucracy and inefficiencies in management, most believed that the majority of the department's functions were necessary responsibilities of the federal government. If not performed by DOE, the argument ran, these tasks would need to be transferred to elsewhere in government, with resulting delays, learning curves, and termination and start-up costs. The hearing was chaired by Sen. Rod Grams (R-MN), sponsor of the proposed legislation, S. 1678, who claimed that the department had become "a patchwork quilt, lacking a coherent theme." The first witness was freshman Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), chair of a congressional task force last year on eliminating DOE, and sponsor of a similar House bill, H.R. 1993. Tiahrt charged that DOE was expensive and overly bureaucratic. He also implied it was ineffective at regulating energy policy, citing long gas lines from cost controls implemented by DOE in what he said was the Carter era. He explained that the two bills provided a three-year blueprint for downgrading the department to a sub-Cabinet-level agency, then shifting its defense programs to DOD and consolidating, privatizing, or eliminating the rest of its activities. Tiahrt claimed the legislation would save approximately $20 billion over five years. Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) pounced on Tiahrt's historical statements, saying that President Nixon had implemented gasoline price controls. Noting that he was in Congress at the time, Johnston remarked, "I'd suggest that my knowledge of DOE is more steeped in history than yours." He added, "I suggest you rethink this bill." Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) said he would be "the first to lead the charge" to abolish the department if he felt its problems could be solved that way, but admitted that many of its activities would need to be carried on regardless. His advice was not to abolish the department, but to "get an Administration that knows how to handle" it. Johnston complained that the bill "scatters DOE's missions to the four winds" and reduced the nation's energy R&D programs to "utter confusion." Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) also defended the department, commending its maintenance of the nation's nuclear stockpile as "one of the great successes of government." Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), a powerful ally of the two DOE labs in his state, declared that he would resist transferring the nuclear weapons functions to DOD "with every ounce" of his capability, and added that "this bill's not going anywhere this year." Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger testified in favor of eliminating DOE, saying it was time to transfer nuclear weapons stewardship, labs, and clean-up responsibilities to DOD. Although he admitted he had felt differently during his tenure as Defense Secretary, Weinberger thought DOE was now lacking "proper regard for the high priority national security should have." "It seems your main difficulty with DOE is the philosophy of the Energy Secretary," rather than cost savings, Johnston commented. "I don't disagree," Weinberger said. "We can get along with the system we've had" if both agencies place sufficient emphasis on national security. Deputy Energy Secretary Charles Curtis recounted ways in which DOE is already working to downsize, reduce costs, and improve its management. He argued that it was important to have a Cabinet-level official responsible for energy issues, including negotiations on non-proliferation and energy supply with foreign powers. In addition, he said, transfer of environmental clean-up efforts could cost billions in delays, while DOE was just putting into place reforms to improve efficiency. Harold Smith, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy, reported that Defense Secretary Perry did not feel the nuclear weapons responsibilities should be shifted to DOD. With the nation just moving toward science-based stockpile stewardship in lieu of testing, Smith said, "we must rely totally on the scientific expertise of [DOE's] national labs" and scientific peer-review. Asked by Johnston if DOD had a bureaucracy in place to clean up the nuclear weapons sites, Smith said the Defense Department "lacks expertise" in large, nuclear waste sites and would have to augment its Corps of Engineers with DOE expertise to do the job. Victor Rezendes, Director of Energy Issues at the General Accounting Office, noted that a May GAO report (see FYI #95) had found DOE to be "on track" so far in achieving its planned savings from downsizing, and stressed that elimination of any department should be considered only in a government-wide context. When Grams asked directly whether dismantling DOE would save the taxpayers money, Rezendes hedged, saying "that's a difficult question," as some functions would need to be continued. Could those functions be performed elsewhere in the government? Grams asked. Probably, Rezendes answered, but "not necessarily better or worse." To Grams' question of "is DOE capable of downsizing itself?," Rezendes answered, "DOE is reinventing itself right now." With Congress in a rush to finish its appropriations bills in time to adjourn by the end of this month, further action on this legislation, as Domenici pointed out, is unlikely this year. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Sep 19 10:12:39 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27546; Thu, 19 Sep 96 10:12:28 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa07983; 19 Sep 96 10:11 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20455; Thu, 19 Sep 96 07:11:02 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA21188; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:10:32 -0600 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:10:32 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: High-Latitude Ecosystem Change Mtg (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR >Krasnoyarsk, September 18, 1996 > > > On behalf of the IGBP and V.N. Sukachev Institute of Forest, >Russian Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch, we would like to >inform on GCTE/PAGES/IGAC/BAHC Workshop "Spatial-temporal dimen- >sion of High-Latitude Ecosystem Change (Siberian IGBP Transect)". >Workshop will take place 24-31 August 1997, at V.N. Sukachev In- >stitute of Forest, Krasnoyarsk. > > FIRST CIRCULAR > > (distributed by E-mail only) > > GCTE/PAGES/IGAC/BAHC Workshop > "Spatial-temporal dimension of High-Latitude Ecosystem Change > (Siberian IGBP Transect)" > > > V.N. Sukachev Institute of Forest > Russian Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch > Krasnoyarsk, Russia > 24-31 August 1997 > > An GCTE/PAGES/IGAC/BAHC Workshop "Spatial-temporal dimension >of High-Latitude Ecosystem Change (Siberian IGBP Transect)" will >be held at V.N. Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS, Krasnoyarsk, >24-31 August 1997. The Workshop is open to international scienti- >fic community. > > >English is Working language. > > >TOPICS AND QUESTIONS ASKED > > The main foci of the Workshop are: > >1. Evaluation of the effects of global change on cycling of carbon >and other important elements, such as nitrogen, in the Northern >Eurasian forest/tundra and boreal ecosystems. > >2. Studies on the effects of global change on the composition and >structure of the Norhern Eurasian forest/tundra and boreal ecosys- >tems, and the interaction with ecosystem function. > >3. Historical direct and indirect data on the long-term dynamics >of the Northern Eurasian boreal forests in relation to global >climate and environment changes. > >4. Studies on the effects of global change on the land-atmosphere >exchange of water and energy and on ground water hydrology in the >Northern Eurasian forest/tundra and boreal ecosystems. > >5. The effects of large human-driven land-use change and distur- >bance regimes (fire, melting permafrost, insect outbreaks, etc.), >on biogeochemical cycles and function, structure and composition >of ecosystems. > >6. Organization of network studies along the Transect in relation >to combine spatial-temporal analysis and modelling. > > >ORGANIZING COMMITTEE > > >Chairman V.N. Sukachev Institute of Forest >Eugene Vaganov Russian Academy of Sciences, > Siberian Branch, Krasnoyarsk, > Russia > >Co-Chairman International Institute of Forest, >Alexander Isaev Moscow, Russia > >Co-Chaiman Institute of Microbiology, >George Zavarzin Russian Academy of Sciences, > Moscow, Russia > >Asistant Chairman V.N. Sukachev Institute of Forest >Elena Muratova Russian Academy of Sciences, > Siberian Branch, Krasnoyarsk, > Russia > >Members: > >Keith Briffa School of Environmental Sciences, > University of East Anglia, > Norwich, United Kingdom > >Harald Bugmann Potsdam Institute for Climate > Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany > >Frank Oldfield PAGES Core Project Office, > Geographisches Institute, > University of Bern, Switzerland > >Alex Pszenny Core Project Office, > Massachusettes Institute > of Technology > >Herman Shugart GCTE Focus 2 Office, Department > of Environmental Sciences, > University of Virginia, USA > >Anatoly Shvidenko International Institute of > Applied System Analysis, > Laxenburg, Austria > >Will Steffen GCTE Core Project Office, > Commonwealth Scientific and > Industrial Research Organization, > Division of Wildlife and Ecology, > Australia > >Alexander Krenke Institute of Geography, > Russian Academy of Sciences, > Moscow, Russia > >Nikita Solomonov Institute of Biology, Russian Aca- > demy of Sciences, Siberian > Branch, Yakutia, Russia > >Anatoly Abaimov V.N. Sukachev Institute of Forest >Stavislav Efremov Russian Academy of Sciences, >Yuri Ershov Siberian Branch, Krasnoyarsk, >Vjacheclav Kharuk Russia >Fedor Pleshikov >Vladimir Sokolov >Vladimir Sedych > > PRELIMINARY REGISTRATION: > for > > GCTE/PAGES/IGAC/BAHC Workshop > "Spatial-temporal dimension of High-Latitude Ecosystem Change > (Siberian IGBP Transect)" > > > V.N. Sukachev Institute of Forest > Russian Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch > Krasnoyarsk, Russia > 24-31 August 1997 > > For preliminary registration use the form attached. If you are >presented a paper, please inform us. Presentations will be oral, >but there is possibility of poster presentation. Preliminary re- >gistration and questionnaire are due February 1, 1997. > >Name: Prof./Dr./Mr./Ms.___________________________________________ > >Affiliation:______________________________________________________ > >Address: _________________________________________________________ > _________________________________________________________ > >Fax:__________________________ Phone: ___________________________ > >E-mail:_________________________________ > >Are you Presenting___ or Attending without Presentation____ > >If presenting, >Tentative Title: ________________________________________________ >_________________________________________________________________ >_________________________________________________________________ > > >Please complete this form >and return by February 1, 1997, to Dr. Elena Muratova. You can >use E-mail, ordinary mail and fax. > > V.N. Sukachev Institute of > Forest, Russian Academy of > Sciences, Siberian Branch, > Academgorodok, Krasnoyarsk, > Russia, 660036 > Fax: +7-39-12-43-36-86 > dndr@ifor.krasnoyarsk.su > >ABSTRACTS: > > Abstracts are due February 1, 1997. It should be mailed (no >fax) to Dr. Elena Muratova in the format specified below. > > V.N. Sukachev Institute of > Forest, Russian Academy of > Sciences, Siberian Branch, > Academgorodok, Krasnoyarsk, > Russia, 660036 > >ABSTRACT Format: > > Volume of abstracts is 1 page of sheet with top, bottom, right >margin of 40 mm and left margin of 10 mm in the frame 240 x 165 mm. >The abstract should include the paper title, author(s) and affili- >ation(s), centered and with a blank line between them as well as >between affiliation and the maim text. > > >PROCEEDINGS: > > Detailed information on proceegings will be in the Second >Circular. > >ACCOMODATIONS: > > Different type of accomodation are available in Krasnoyask. >Price is 50-80 $ per day. > > >TRAVEL: > > You can come to Krasnoyarsk via Moscow, St-Petersburg and >so on. The best way is from Frankfurt to Novosibirisk and flight >or train from Novosibirisk to Krasnoyrsk. The time-table of >flights Frakfurt-Novosibirsk for next year is not established >yet. We'll sent the additional information in the Second Circular. > >TIME SCHEDULE > >First Circular to be mailed out 1 October, 1996 > >Registration and Questionnaire to received 1 February, 1996 > >Abstracts to be received 1 February, 1997 > >Second Circular to be issued 1 March, 1997 > >Contact person for organization of Workshop is: > >Dr. Elena Muratova > > V.N. Sukachev Institute of > Forest, Russian Academy of > Sciences, Siberian Branch, > Academgorodok, Krasnoyarsk, > Russia, 660036 > Fax: +7-39-12-43-36-86 > dndr@ifor.krasnoyarsk.su > From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Sep 19 10:27:45 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27638; Thu, 19 Sep 96 10:27:41 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa16142; 19 Sep 96 10:27 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA20480; Thu, 19 Sep 96 07:23:55 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA21597; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:23:25 -0600 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:23:25 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Conferees Complete Work on NSF Appropriatons for FY97 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Subject: Conferees Complete Work on NSF Appropriatons for FY97 Below is a revised and more complete description of the agreements reached by House and Senate appropriations conferees with respect to NSF. ***************************************************************** On Wednesday, September 18, House and Senate negotiators conferenced on H.R. 3666, the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1997. For NSF, the conferees agreed on a total appropriation of $3.270 billion, an amount that is $50 million, or about 2%, over the FY 1996 level. For research and related activities, the conferees adopted the Senate's recommendation of $2.432 billion which is $118 million -- or 5.1% over the FY 1996 level. The appropriation for research and related activities includes $50 million for large-scale academic research instrumentation. Also available in this appropriation account is $1.4 million as a contingency to meet tariff requirements associated with the Gemini telescope project. The education and human resources activity is to be funded at $619 million -- an amount equal to the budget request. This is $7 million above the House recommendation and $5 million below the Senate's recommendation. Within the agreed upon funding level, the conferees made the following changes to the education budget request: +$10 million for informal science education to be used in conjunction with overall systemic reform efforts; +$2.5 million for EPSCoR; -$2 million from graduate programs; -$5 million from undergraduate programs; -$2.5 million from precollege curriculum development; and -$3 million from research, evaluation, and communications. The major research equipment (MRE) activity, which supports the construction of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) and South Pole Station Safety project, is funded at $80 million. The MRE appropriation is sufficient to keep these two important projects on schedule. The conferees agreed to fund NSF's salaries and expenses account at the Senate level of $134 million. This amount is equal to the NSF request for FY 1997 and averts the staffing and operational disruptions that could have occurred under the House passed level for this account. The Office of Inspector General is to funded at $4.69 million, which is identical to the budget request. The conferees dropped a House provision from the bill concerning restrictions on the use of funds regarding the procurement of a supercomputer. The conference report is expected to be filed and ready for House floor action before the week is out. Additional details will be available as soon as the conference report is released. NSF FY95 FY96 FY97 FY97 FY97 FY97 FY97 ACCT Level Level Req HAuth HAppr* SAppr Final RRA 2245 2314 2472 2380 2431* 2432 2432 EHR 606 599 619 600 612* 624 619 ARI 118 100 0 100 0 0 0 MRE 126 70 95 80 80* 80 80 S&E/REL 129 132 134 125 125* 134 134 OIG 4 5 5 5 5* 5 5 Total 3227 3220 3325 3290 3253* 3275 3270 *The House bill includes a general provision which contains a .4% across the board reduction for most accounts in this bill, including the NSF accounts. The across the board reduction provision was dropped in conference. RRA -- Research and Related Activities EHR -- Education and Human Resources ARI -- Academic Research Infrastructure MRE -- Major Research Equipment S&E -- Salaries and Expenses REL -- Relocation OIG -- Office of Inspector General From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Oct 14 09:51:51 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA27856; Mon, 14 Oct 96 09:51:43 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa23365; 14 Oct 96 9:51 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA28882; Mon, 14 Oct 96 06:50:05 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA12231; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 07:49:48 -0600 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 07:49:47 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Environmental Geochemistry/Biogeochemistry funds Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: ORf NSF funds for: ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMISTRY AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY Research at the Interfaces of Geochemistry, Hydrology, Coastal Sciences, Atmospheric Sciences, Chemistry, Microbial and Molecular Biology, Colloid and Transport Engineering, and Mathematics Solicitation DIVISION OF EARTH SCIENCES DIVISION OF OCEAN SCIENCES DIVISION OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY DIVISION OF CHEMICAL & TRANSPORT SYSTEMS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY DIVISION OF MOLECULAR & CELLULAR BIOSCIENCES DIVISION OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES DEADLINE DATE: January 7, 1997 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Description The goal of the Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry activity is to enhance fundamental, interdisciplinary research on chemical processes that determine the behavior and distribution of inorganic and organic materials in environments near the Earth's surface. Of particular importance are projects that characterize chemical parameters in both perturbed and unperturbed natural systems, clarify the chemical processes or behavior observed, or combine observations and interpretations into predictive models. One of the biggest challenges facing scientists and engineers involved in environmental research is understanding the highly interrelated physical, chemical and biological feedback loops commonly present in the Earth's natural systems. The Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry research activity addresses this challenge by supporting studies on the physical- chemical-biotic behavior of chemical substances within one environment or by emphasizing research that focuses on a common chemical theme throughout a variety of environments. Environments of interest are soils, ground waters, surface waters, coastal marine and estuarine areas, and portions of the troposphere in contact with these environments. This research activity encourages integration of critical inquiry from the disciplines of inorganic, organic, bioinorganic, and bioorganic chemistry (reactions in complex environments), geochemistry (characterization and distribution of chemical compounds in natural systems), hydrology (flow and transport), biology (dynamic influences of microbes and other communities), colloid, interfacial, and transport engineering (including generic mechanisms in porous media), and mathematics (analytical, statistical, and computational modeling of complex systems) to address environmental problems. Research projects combining approaches from other chemically-based science or engineering fields of study with these disciplines are also appropriate. This Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeo-chemistry activity is not an appropriate venue for research suitable for support in existing disciplinary programs or for research having impact on a single discipline. Such proposals should be submitted to existing disciplinary programs in the various divisions. Additionally, it is not suitable for research with an epidemiological or toxicological approach. Research supported through this activity will facilitate development of a multi-faceted perspective and predictive understanding of the complex interactions of the geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere as they relate to chemical transport. The results will contribute to the knowledge base used by management and policy decision-makers in planning, development, pollution avoidance, remediation, and restoration activities. Selected examples of research areas suitable for study under this interdisciplinary research activity follow: o interactions of inorganic and organic compounds, colloids, and microbes in natural waters, soils, and sediments, and impacts on processes such as speciation and transport behavior of contaminants and nutrients at the molecular level; o the integrated effects of physical, chemical, biological, geological, and anthropogenic factors on chemical sorption, transport, and bioavailability in natural waters, soils and sediments; o trace and major tropospheric gases: role of soils, biota, and coastal waters as receptors and emitters; reservoir size and flux; o modeling, including mathematical and numerical simulation, that integrates solute/suspension transport and geochemical reactions involving inorganic and organic substances and microorganisms; developing the means for extrapolating chemical observations among different space and time scales (e.g., molecular and laboratory level to field and watershed level); o holistic, interdisciplinary studies of interactions among the geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere that elucidate a natural system's response to, and recovery from, chemical perturbations caused by natural phenomena or human activities; o national or international workshops or conferences on appropriate topics that emphasize interdisciplinary research in environmental geochemistry and biogeochemistry. Award lists and abstracts for the FY95 and FY96 competitions are available on-line at http://www.nsf.gov/stratare/egch/envresop.htm. For further information about the Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry research activity, contact Maryellen Cameron, Division of Earth Sciences, (703) 306-1554, mcameron@nsf.gov; Margaret Cavanaugh, Division of Chemistry, (703) 306-1842, mcavanau@nsf.gov; L. Douglas James, Division of Earth Sciences, (703) 306-1549, ldjames@nsf.gov; Ken Buesseler, Division of Ocean Sciences, (703) 306-1589, kbuessel@nsf.gov; Mike Roco, Division of Chemical and Transport Systems, (703) 306-1371, mroco@nsf.gov; Anne-Marie Schmoltner, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, (703) 306-1528, aschmolt@nsf.gov; Gaius Shaver, Division of Environmental Biology, (703) 306-1479, gshaver@nsf.gov; or Chuck Liarakos, Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, (703) 306-1441, cliarako@ nsf.gov. Preparation and Submission of Proposals Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation will be accepted from colleges, universities, and other not-for-profit institutions in the U.S. Organizations affiliated with local, state, or federal government units (including FFRDCs) are not considered eligible. Such organizations may, however, participate in research conducted by eligible organizations by means of minor subcontracts (<10% of total requested funding) in order to cover lab, field and travel, but not salary, expenses. Award durations of two to three years will be considered. Average annual award levels are anticipated to be approximately $50,000 to $100,000 per senior investigator. The total funding requested for each project, for all investigators, must not exceed $500,000. The number of awards will depend on a variety of factors, including quality of proposals submitted and linkages with other NSF activities and programs. In FY 1997, NSF expects to make awards totaling approximately $ 5.1 million for this activity, depending on availability of funds. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must be received no later than 5:00 pm EST on January 7, 1997 and must meet all guidelines (except for the length and deadline noted herein) specified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF 95- 27. The GPG is available in most university offices of sponsored research. It contains the forms needed to prepare the proposal and instructions for filling them out. Single copies of this brochure are available at no cost from: NSF Publications and Supplies Unit 4201 Wilson Boulevard Room P-15 Arlington, VA 22230 Telephone (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail from Internet: pubs@nsf.gov The normal 15-page limit specified in the GPG will be strictly enforced. For group proposals involving three or more PIs/co-PIs the page limitations described in GPG, section II.D.12.b, are superseded by the following: up to 10 pages may be used for the project description plus up to 2 pages per person for description of progress under prior NSF awards. Group and collaborative proposals involving more than one institution MUST be submitted as a single administrative package from one of the institutions involved. Multiple submissions will not be accepted. (These single packages may be split into separate proposals for each institution if the project is recommended for support.) The package should include one project summary, one table of contents, one project description, one section for references, and one copy of special information and appendices as specified in GPG section II.D.10-11. Additionally, the package should include, for each university and its PIs/co- PIs, a signed cover sheet, budget pages and explanation, results from prior NSF support (up to 2 pages per person), biographic sketches (up to 2 pages per person), current and pending support for each PI/co-PI, and facilities and other resources unique to each institution. The Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry (EGB) name and solicitation number should be referenced in the upper left corner of the proposal cover sheet. Twenty stapled copies of each proposal/proposal package, including one copy bearing original signatures from all institutions, should be mailed to: Solicitation No. NSF 96-152 National Science Foundation Room P60 - PPU 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 Proposal Review: Proposals will be evaluated by ad hoc mail review, panel review, or a combination of the two in accordance with established Foundation procedures and the four general criteria described in the GPG. An additional criterion in the evaluation process will be the potential interdisciplinary synergism among the various research components. It is anticipated that each review panel will have expertise in the fields of chemistry, geochemistry, atmospheric chemistry, hydrology, oceanography, biology, engineering and mathematics. Review and processing of proposals require approximately six months. Grant Administration: Grants awarded as a result of this solicitation will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1 or FDP, Grant General Conditions. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Publications and Supplies Unit, phone (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail pubs@nsf.gov (Internet). More comprehensive information is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (NSF 95-26, July 1995), for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 20402. The telephone number at GPO is (202) 783-3238 for subscription information. If the submitting institution has never received an NSF award, it is recommended that appropriate administrative officials become familiar with the policies and procedures in the NSF Grant Policy Manual which are applicable to most NSF awards. If a proposal is recommended for an award, the NSF Division of Grants and Agreements will request certain organizational, management, and financial information, including a certification of civil rights compliance. These requirements are described in Chapter V of the NSF Grant Policy Manual. One copy of the Grant Policy Manual will be provided free of charge to any new grantee. Related disciplinary programs: NSF disciplinary programs supporting research related to Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry include: Division of Earth Sciences (703-306-1550) Geology and Paleontology Hydrologic Sciences Petrology and Geochemistry Division of Chemistry (703-306-1840) Analytical and Surface Chemistry Environmentally Benign Chemical Synthesis and Processing Experimental Physical Chemistry Inorganic, Bioinorganic, or Organometallic Chemistry Organic Synthesis and Dynamics Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (703-306-1440) Biomolecular Processes Genetics Cell Biology Biomolecular Structure and Function Division of Environmental Biology (703-306-1480) Ecological Studies Systematic and Population Biology Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (703-306- 1320) Bioengineering Environmental and Ocean Systems Division of Chemical and Transport Systems (703-306-1371) Chemical Reaction Processes Fluid, Particulate and Hydraulic Systems Interfacial, Transport and Separation Processes Division of Civil and Mechanical Structures (703-306-1360) Geomechanical, Geotechnical and Geo- Environmental Systems Division of Atmospheric Sciences (703-306-1528) Atmospheric Chemistry Division of Ocean Sciences (703-306-1580) Biological Oceanography Chemical Oceanography Coastal Ocean Processes Marine Aspects of Earth System History Marine Geology and Geophysics Division of Mathematical Sciences (703-306-1870) Applied Mathematics Computational Mathematics Statistics and Probability Other related programs & activities: Arctic Systems Science - Office of Polar Programs (703-306-1033) Earth System History (703-306-1527) Long-Term Ecological Research (703-306-1480) Land-Margin Ecosystem Research (703-306-1480) NSF/EPA Partnership for Environmental Research (703-306-1480) Terrestrial Ecology (TECO) and Global Change (703-306-1479) Water and Energy: Atmospheric, Vegetative, and Earth Interactions (703-306-1549) The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of the research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for such findings or interpretations. The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and research-related programs described in this document. In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on NSF-supported projects. For more information see GPG, the program announcement, or contact the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636. Upon completion of the project a Final Project Report (NSF Form 98A), including the Part IV Summary, will be required. Applicants should review this form prior to proposal submission so that appropriate tracking methods are included in the proposal plan to ensure that complete information will be available at the end of the project. The Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the NSF Information Center about NSF programs, employment, or general information. The telephone number is (703) 306-0090; for FIRS, 1-800-877-8339. Activities described in this publication are in categories 47.076, Education and Human Resources; 47.050, Geosciences; 47.041, Engineering; 47.049, Mathematical and Physical Sciences; and 47.074, Biological Sciences in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS: The information requested on proposal forms is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process; to applicant institutions/grantees; to provide or obtain data regarding the application review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers as necessary to complete assigned work; and to other governmental agencies in order to coordinate programs. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995), "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 59 Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to: Herman G. Fleming Reports Clearance Officer Contracts, Policy and Oversight National Science Foundation Washington, DC 20503 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 and/or to Office of Management and Budget OIRM - Paperwork Reduction Project (3145-0058) OMB 3145-0058 PT 18 34 40 42 0605000 0606010 1002003 1002016 1002027 1005002 1005013 1005016 1005019 1005051 1007000 1007001 1007002 1007003 007010 1007012 NSF 96-152 ------ end of nsf96152.txt -- ascii -- complete ------ From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Oct 16 21:05:53 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06962; Wed, 16 Oct 96 21:05:51 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa07477; 16 Oct 96 20:47 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA16052; Wed, 16 Oct 96 17:45:15 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04371; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 18:45:00 -0600 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 18:45:00 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: appropriation trends Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Trends in Appropriations for Selected Programs, FY 1995-97 Looking back at appropriations funding over several years gives a perspective on funding trends for a program or agency. Below are appropriated amounts for selected programs, adjusted for inflation so that all amounts are in constant 1997 dollars. Agency/ FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 Program (Adjusted) (Adjusted) (IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT-YEAR 1997 DOLLARS) NSF Total $3,365.7 $3,290.8 $3,270.0 Research & Related Activities 2,344.5 2,360.8 2,432.0* Academic Research Instrumentation 123.0 102.2 0* Education & Human Resources 631.5 612.2 619.0 NASA Total 14,984.0 14,205.8 13,704.2 Human Space Flight 5,751.8 5,580.1 5,362.9 Science, Aeronautics & Technology 6,137.4 6,060.5 5,762.1 DOE Total 18,235.0 15,738.8 15,780.0 High Energy Physics 674.2 681.7 670.1 Nuclear Physics 349.1 311.7 315.9 Fusion Energy 388.7 249.4 232.5 Basic Energy Sciences 778.4 809.4 649.7 NIST Total 729.4+ 633.2 588.0 Advanced Techno- logy Program 355.3+ 225.9 225.0 Manufacturing Extens- ion Partnership 77.1+ 81.8 95.0 Core Laboratories 257.4+ 264.7 268.0 *For the first time, in fiscal year 1997, NSF's Academic Research Infrastructure funding, totaling $50 million, was included in the R&RA account. +After rescissions made to FY 1995 appropriations in calendar year 1995. ##END########## From deanu@pinus.env.duke.edu Mon Oct 21 16:27:30 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA02563; Mon, 21 Oct 96 16:27:26 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa12231; 21 Oct 96 16:25 EDT Received: from pinus.env.duke.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA09193; Mon, 21 Oct 96 13:12:27 PDT Received: from fagus.env.duke.edu by pinus.env.duke.edu (5.x/ccw950621) id AA23546; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:12:13 -0400 Received: by fagus.env.duke.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4-ccw950225) id AA01837; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:12:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:12:13 -0400 From: Dean Urban Message-Id: <9610212012.AA01837@fagus.env.duke.edu> To: lter-pi@lternet.edu Subject: Landscape Ecology Symposium X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Status: OR hi gang, please excuse the mass mailing, especially since many of you have already seen this. but because the theme of this year's meeting is so consistent with LTER, I hope you'll think about participating. dlu ____________________________________________________________________ Second Announcement and Call for Abstracts ... 12th Annual Symposium United States Regional Association International Association for Landscape Ecology March 16-19, 1997 Nicholas School of the Environment Duke University Durham, North Carolina Landscape ecology focuses on spatial heterogeneity: how to characterize pattern, how pattern originates, and its implications for populations, communities, and ecosystem processes. Increasingly, landscape ecologists are concerned with how landscapes change through time and the forces that govern these dynamics. Clearly, an understanding of the agents and trajectories of landscape change is crucial to our ability to anticipate future landscape conditions and the implications of these for resource management and land use planning. The symposium will be hosted by the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. The meeting will be held Sunday through Wednesday, March 16-19, 1997, at the Washington Duke Inn and Golf Club on the edge of Duke's West Campus, adjoining Duke Forest. The meeting will consist of plenary sessions with invited guests, thematic sessions of contributed papers, and poster sessions. Special workshops will focus on techniques for teaching landscape ecology and for sharing research and teaching tools such as custom software. Meeting guests may participate in all-day field trips on Sunday, as well as shorter field trips on Tuesday afternoon. Field trips will visit a variety of ecosystems and research sites in the Durham area, the Piedmont, and the Coastal Plain. For more information and instructions for submitting abstracts, please visit our web site: http://www.env.duke.edu/iale97 or contact the Program Chair: Dean Urban, US-IALE Program Chair Nicholas School of the Environment Levine Science Research Center Duke University Durham, North Carolina 27708-0328 Phone: 919-613-8076 FAX: 919-684-8741 E-mail: iale97@pinus.env.duke.edu Deadline for submitting abstracts is November 15, 1996. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Oct 25 13:17:22 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA14984; Fri, 25 Oct 96 13:17:16 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa01409; 25 Oct 96 13:16 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA24303; Fri, 25 Oct 96 10:16:32 PDT Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13672; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:16:22 -0600 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:16:22 -0600 (MDT) From: James Gosz To: dman@lternet.edu Subject: next computational age Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Media contact: October 25, 1996 Beth Gaston, (703) 306-1070/egaston@nsf.gov NSF PR 96-65 Program contact: John Van Rosendale, (703) 306-1970/jvanrose@nsf.gov NEED FOR SPEED: NSF PURSUES PETAFLOP COMPUTERS Kids often race their bicycles, pedaling madly to move ever faster. Then they advance to sedans, but covet sports cars, still wanting to push that envelope of speed. Computer scientists are no different. The fastest computers created today are capable of speeds of about a teraflop--a trillion operations per second. Already researchers are looking far ahead, yearning for computers a thousand times faster. The National Science Foundation, in conjunction with NASA and DARPA, have funded eight research projects to creatively approach a petaflop. These pilot projects will be presented at a workshop this Sunday, Oct. 27, at the Frontiers '96 conference in Annapolis, Maryland. To put the speeds in terms that people can understand: if the speeds of the world's fastest computers just now being built are like the Clipper ships Christopher Columbus used to cross the Atlantic, space shuttle speeds are the goal of this research project. Right now, computer speeds are limited by memory storage and by how fast that memory can be transferred to the working parts of the computer. Even with those issues solved, computers operating at petaflop speeds must be massively parallel--any application must be broken into a million pieces, all calculated at once. To wait to solve problems sequentially slows the computer down. "The first petaflop computers are going to be difficult to use. One of the goals of this project is to see how friendly can we keep them. You don't want computers only a few experts can use. The architectures must support a reasonable programming model without slowing down," said John Van Rosendale, NSF program manager leading the project. But why would anyone need a thousand trillion operations per second? Any number of applications are already apparent, from real time nuclear magnetic resonance imaging during surgery, to computer based drug design, astrophysical simulation and modeling of environmental pollution and long term climate changes. "Until the Internet arrived, we had no real appreciation of its impact. Petaflop computers may be like that: we have only a limited sense of the kind of applications this technology will enable," Van Rosendale said. The eight Pursuing a Petaflop projects are: *A Flexible Architecture for Executing Component Software at 100 Teraflops; Andrew A. Chien and Rajesh K. Gupta, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign * Point Designs for 100 Teraflop Computers Using PIM Technologies; Peter M. Kogge, Steven C. Bass, Jay B. Brockman, Danny Z. Chen and Edwin Hsing-Mean Sha; University of Notre Dame *Architecture, Algorithms and Applications for Future Generation Supercomputers; Vipin Kumar and Ahmed Sameh; University of Minnesota *Design Studies on Petaflops Special-Purpose Hardware for Astrophysical Particle Simulations; Stephen L. W. McMillan, Drexel University; Piet Hut, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; Junichiro Makino, University of Tokyo; Michael L. Normal, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Frank J. Summers, Princeton University * Hybrid Technology Multi-Threaded Architecture; Paul Messina and Thomas Sterling; California Institute of Technology * Hierarchical Processors-and-Memory Architecture for High Performance Computing; Jose A.B. Fortes and Rudolph Eigenmann, Purdue University; Valerie Taylor, Northwestern University * The Illinois Agressive Cache-Only Memory Architecture Multiprocessor; Josep Torrellas and David Padua, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign * A Scalable-Feasible Parallel Computer Implementing Electronic and Optical Interconnections for 156 TeraOPS Minimum Performance; Sotirios G. Ziavras and Haim Grebel, New Jersey Institute of Technology; Anthony T. Chronopoulos, Wayne State University For more information about the conference, see: http://www.aero.hq.nasa.gov/hpcc/front96.html -NSF- From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Dec 7 11:03:43 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19066; Sat, 7 Dec 96 11:03:31 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa03938; 7 Dec 96 10:58 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA14619; Sat, 7 Dec 96 07:58:02 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA12737; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:56:47 -0700 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:56:47 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: FYI #163 - NSF Criteria (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Proposed NSF Merit Review Criteria As reported in FYI #162, a National Science Board (NSB) Task Force has recommended the revision of NSF's Merit Review Criteria. In the report text and a "Sample NSF Proposal Review Form" the following criteria are proposed. Included below, before #1, is an introductory paragraph from the report: "The Task Force recommends the two generic criteria (below) to replace the current four NSB criteria. Within each criterion is a set of contextual elements, defined by questions to assist the reviewer in understanding their intent. These elements are non-inclusive; i.e. it is recognized that, for some programs, other considerations not identified below may be important for the evaluation of proposals. Further, reviewers are requested to address only those elements that they consider relevant to the proposal at hand and that they feel qualified to make judgments on. "#1 What is the intellectual merit and quality of the proposed activity? "The following are suggested questions to consider in assessing how well the proposal meets the criterion: What is the likelihood that the project will significantly advance the knowledge base within and/or across different fields? Does the proposed activity suggest and explore new lines of inquiry? To what degree does the proposer's documented expertise and record of achievement increase the probability of success? Is the projected conceptually well designed? Is the plan for organizing and managing the project credible and well conceived? And, is there sufficient access to resources? "#2 What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? "The following are suggested questions to consider in assessing how well the proposal meets the criterion: How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while concurrently promoting teaching, training, and learning? Will it create/enhance facilities, instrumentation, information bases, networks, partnerships, and/or other infrastructure? How well does the activity broaden the diversity of participants? Does the activity enhance scientific and technological literacy? And, what is the potential impact on meeting societal needs?" In his briefing this week on these draft criteria, NSF Director Neal Lane said that there would be no weighing of these criteria. In background material this point was amplified: "NSF does not pre-assign weights to the criteria; given the variation across NSF's many different programs, any `one size fits all' approach would be counterproductive. Overall, however, excellence will continue to be the hallmark of all NSF sponsored activities." The sample review form for the new criteria does not include the language now found on the second page of the current proposal evaluation form regarding "relative weight" and "Summary Ratings," although one of five ratings from "excellent" to "poor" is to be checked on the new form. Further information on these proposed revisions can be found this NSF web site: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/meritrev.htm A feedback form is provided. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Dec 11 15:58:56 1996 Received: from virginia.edu (mars.itc.Virginia.EDU) by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09098; Wed, 11 Dec 96 15:58:55 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa14738; 11 Dec 96 15:48 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13046; Wed, 11 Dec 96 12:46:16 PST Received: by sevilleta.unm.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA15622; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:43:46 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:43:46 -0700 (MST) From: James Gosz To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: Links Between Tropical, North Atlantic Climate Change (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR SCIENTISTS UNCOVER LINK BETWEEN TROPICAL AND NORTH ATLANTIC CLIMATE CHANGE Scientists working under a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) have unveiled a new theory that winds in the tropics caused vast iceberg armadas to surge across the North Atlantic. In the December 13 issue of Science, Andrew McIntyre and Barbara Molfino, paleoclimatologists at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, report evidence that strong westward-blowing trade winds died down along the equator at about the same time that iceberg flotillas sailed across the North Atlantic during the last ice age -- in approximately the same 7,000- to 10,000-year cycles. "Ever since these cyclic iceberg pulses were first discovered in the early 1990s, scientists have tried to understand what caused them and have wondered whether Earth's climate system could shift so dramatically again in modern times," says Connie Sancetta, program director in NSF's marine geology and geophysics program, which funded the research. The Lamont-Doherty scientists theorize that the equatorial winds relaxed periodically, allowing a large reservoir of warm tropical waters -- which had been pushed into the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico by the winds -- to flow back eastward. The waters were whisked by the Gulf Stream to the north, where they warmed the North Atlantic region and triggered melting along the edges of the massive ice sheets that covered the Northern Hemisphere. According to McIntyre and Molfino's theory, the strength of Atlantic equatorial trade winds over long intervals of time is governed by Earth's orbital cycle, which alters the seasonal intensity of solar radiation reaching the planet. The researchers found that over the past 45,000 years, a suborbital rhythm of 8,400 years has produced variations in the strength of the tropical winds. McIntyre will present his new theory on December 16 at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco. McIntyre and Molfino analyzed three ocean sediment cores taken near the equator just below the bulge of Africa. They looked for the fossilized plates of a marine alga called Florisphaera profunda. Unlike other algae, F. profunda lives further below the surface where sunlight levels are lower. When westward trade winds are strong, deeper nutrient-filled waters come nearly to the surface to replace the waters blown westward, and all algae thrive. But when the winds diminish, surface waters don't receive as many nutrients, surface algae don't fare well and the ratio of F. profunda to its cousins goes up. The scientists found relatively high levels of F. profunda every 8,400 years, in a regular cycle stretching back 45,000 years. The high points of F. profunda along the equator correlated with times when other scientists have found high levels of pulverized rock in North Atlantic ocean sediment cores. This rock, which had been frozen into the bases of glaciers and carried out to sea in icebergs, is the signature of great iceberg launchings. Scientists have yet to determine whether these iceberg pulses are a response to climate changes, or a result of them -- or both. Explains McIntyre, "Our hypothesis is based on the premise that the equatorial bulge -- which receives the most solar radiation of anywhere on Earth -- is the central boiler that drives heat and energy around the planet. Small variations in received energy per unit area in the tropics translate into major changes in the total energy of the Earth's system." -NSF- EDITORS: Andrew McIntyre will present the new findings linking tropical and North Atlantic climate change at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco. He is to speak Monday, December 16 at 1:50 P.M. in Room 104 of the Moscone Center. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Jan 16 18:29:47 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA21888; Thu, 16 Jan 97 18:29:45 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id ad11946; 16 Jan 97 18:26 EST Received: from pyxis.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA19096; Thu, 16 Jan 97 15:25:04 PST Received: from serviette.unm.edu(really [129.24.168.205]) by pyxis.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:18:37 -0700 (MST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #51 built 1996-Oct-30) Received: from relampago.unm.edu by serviette.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03736; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:23:39 -0700 Received: from localhost by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03083; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:24:14 -0700 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:24:14 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Prospects for Science Funding: More of the Same Means Less of What We Want (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Here's an analysis by Kathleen Ritzman at UCSD. The House Science Committee in the 105th Congress and Prospects for Science Funding: More of the Same Means Less of What We Want. Tom Weimer, staff director of the House Science Subcommittee on Basic Research presented an overview of the committee and its agenda for the 105th Congress at a recent AAU Council on Federal Relations meeting. Continuing pursuit of a balanced budget and the de facto implementation of congressional term limits means that Congress is unlikely to explore anynew science initiatives or deviate markedly from policy directions established by the new majority two years ago. Balanced Budgets and Science Funding - Weimer observed that federal research and development funding will continue its decline which began in 1992, and this will continue the trend started in 1980, where industry funding of R&D exceeds federal R&D expenditures. (NB - it is important to scrutinize these gross statistics: over the last five years, civilian R&D has declined more rapidly than defense R&D, and health R&D has actually increased; basic research accounts within NSF and NIH have increased while mission-oriented (fundamental) research accounts at DOE, NASA, NOAA, Interior, etc, have declined; with regard to the increase of industry support for research vis a vis federal support, it will be important to educate the newly elected that the bulk of industry research fits within a very generously defined category of "development" activity, and does not constitute a source of support to replace diminishing federal accounts.) National Science Foundation - Congress expects the Clinton administration to request a 3 percent increase for NSF in FY 98. Weimer believes Republicans will support a 3 percent increase in NSF research accounts, but will not support increases for NSF salaries and operations accounts. The latter position reflects the view that NSF as an agency (as distinct from its constituents) should be as accountable and responsive to government downsizing trends as NASA et al. The research community has supported NSF's salary and operating expense requests in the past on the grounds that such increases are essential to efficient administration of its programs. This rationale will continue to be salient as reductions in other research agency budgets attract increasing numbers of proposals to NSF. (This trend also means that NSF proposal success rates are likely to decline as investigators previously supported by DOE, NASA, et al turn their attention to NSF RFPs.) The House Science Subcommittee on Basic Research will hold hearings on the NSF proposed reform of merit review following the public comment period. House Science Committee Chair Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and NSF Director Lane discussed this initiative during their visit to Antartica. Provisions in the proposed reform of merit review addressing how NSF research advances specific national goals will draw the committee's attention and are viewed as especially critical to continuing support for the social and behavioral sciences programs. Department of Energy - While DOE's energy research accounts will continue to diminish, Senator Domenici's (R-NM) Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee staff is drafting legislation to make DOE a sub cabinet agency. White House Science Adviser Jack Gibbons, House Science Subcommittee Chair, Rep. Schiff (R-NM), and House Science Committee ranking minority member, Rep. Brown (D-CA), are reported to be "open" to a realignment of DOE's research activities. It is rumored that some of DOE's basic energy sciences programs would move to NSF. NASA, NOAA, NIST - the 105th Congress will continue to reduce the size and range of research programs within these organizations. House Science Committee Policy Interests Education - in response to the Clinton administration's successful use of education as a campaign theme, expect the House Science Committee to develop a broad-based science/math/engineering education initiative for release following its authorization activity in June. The Committee is especially interested in innovative programs (e.g. Charter Schools?) that address educational concerns at the K-12 level. International Science - the Committee is interested in exploring the growing array of science and technology policy issues accompanying the globalization of innovation: the role of foreign graduate students and faculty in American research universities; burden sharing and reciprocity in cooperative international research ventures; comparative evaluation of foreign science and technology strategies; examination of "best practices" in research partnerships involving science and technology organizations from different nations. Intellectual Property - because the new House Science Chair has served on the Judiciary Committee, he plans to hold joint hearings with that committee on intellectual property issues. House Science Committee Politics - only the chairs of the Basic Research (Rep.. Schiff, R-NM) and Technology (Rep. Morella, R-MD) Subcommittees have been appointed; the full membership of the House Science Committee has yet to be announced; the full committee will be reduced in size to 40 members; and like the House, approximately 60 percent of the members will have less than four years experience in government; although many of the new members of Congress have government experience, few will have any significant science policy background. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Jan 30 21:07:47 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15799; Thu, 30 Jan 97 21:07:42 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa16820; 30 Jan 97 21:01 EST Received: from pyxis.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA11078; Thu, 30 Jan 97 17:57:32 PST Received: from serviette.unm.edu(really [129.24.168.205]) by pyxis.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:51:31 -0700 (MST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #51 built 1996-Oct-30) Received: from relampago.unm.edu by serviette.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA06020; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:56:18 -0700 Received: from localhost by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA06290; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:57:11 -0700 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:57:11 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: LTER - Land/Ocean Margins (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR draft announcement of LTER competition for Land Margin sites please notice this is a draft and subject to change. Also, check out the page we have for additional information for people writing proposals for both the Land Margin and Urban LTER sites at: http://LTERnet.edu/propinfo that URL is identified in the announcement below. I suspect people will be contacting your sites for information or for collaboration. The Urban LTER competition announcement should be out shortly. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 15:31:07 EST From: prtaylor@nsf.gov To: jhobbie@mbl.edu, jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu, halbatch@violet.berkeley.edu, roman@hpel.umd.edu, weiler@whitman.edu, prtaylor@nsf.gov Subject: LTER - Land/Ocean Margins John Hobbie and LMER Jim Gosz and LTER Sue Weiler and ASLO Hal Batchelder and GLOBEC Mike Roman and Co-OP As both text and WORD attachments I've included a DRAFT of a PROSPECTIVE but TENTATIVE and UNAPPROVED Announcement of Opportunity on LTERs in Land/Ocean Margin Ecosystems. I would appreciate it if you would post the DRAFT AO on your home pages for edification of the community about this hoped-for activity. Please indicate the unapproved and tentative nature of the AO and the fact that the date may slip if it does get approved. Please let me know when you have posted it (if you choose to). Many thanks, Phil Taylor ********************************* Phillip Taylor, Director Biological Oceanography Program Division of Ocean Sciences National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd. Suite 725 Arlington, VA 22230 prtaylor@nsf.gov phone 703-306-1587 fax 306-0390 LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH (LTER) IN LAND/OCEAN MARGIN ECOSYSTEMS Announcement of Opportunity Deadline: 15 May 1997 Directorate of Biological Science, Division of Environmental Biology Directorate of Geosciences, Division of Ocean Sciences NSF Logo NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Introduction To enhance the scope and disciplinary breadth of the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network, the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces a competition for up to two (2) new LTER sites that focus on ecological systems at the interfaces of land masses and coastal oceans (including the Laurentian Great Lakes), hereafter referred to as land/ocean-margin ecosystems. Estuaries, coastal wetlands, and coastal reefs are examples of land/ocean-margin ecosystems. With an initial set of six sites selected in 1980, the National Science Foundation established the Long-Term Ecological Research Program to conduct research on long-term ecological phenomena. The present total of 18 sites represents a broad array of ecosystems and research emphases. None of the existing sites explicitly focus on land/ocean-margin ecosystems. Coastal areas are sites of intense human activity and rapid population growth. Many research questions in land/ocean-margin ecosystems require highly integrative analyses conducted over long time frames and broad spatial scales. In recent years, the National Science Foundation has endeavored to expand the disciplinary scope of the LTER Network through competitions to augment research activities at existing LTER sites. This competition for land/ocean-margin LTER sites is a collaborative effort between the Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE) in the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) and the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) in the Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO). The research proposed to this announcement should emphasize major ecological questions on the linkages between terrestrial and coastal ecosystems. The work should seek to understand the causes of major ecological and environmental changes that influence land/ocean-margin environments, and how the populations, communities, and ecosystems of the land/ocean-margin ecosystems respond to these changes. In order to achieve major advances in understanding these land/ocean-margin systems, the following elements are encouraged: - interdisciplinary research coordinated among investigators working within an ecological system, - experimental studies across a range of appropriate spatial and temporal scales, - development of conceptual, analytical and numerical models to guide the research and data management activities to facilitate comparisons with research in other systems, and - comparative approaches encompassing parallel studies in different ecosystems. Proposals submitted to this competition must explicitly investigate the linkages between terrestrial and coastal ecosystems, and must support the general mission of the LTER Network as outlined below. The LTER Program The LTER Network is a collaborative effort among over 600 scientists and students which extends the opportunities and capabilities of the individual sites to promote synthesis and comparative research across sites. The Network is managed by an Executive Committee and a larger Coordinating Committee, both comprised of representatives of the LTER sites. The LTER Network Office supports, facilitates, and enhances the research and creative activities developed by the LTER Network. In addition, the LTER Network Office plays a leadership role in developing and implementing data and information management standards and protocols for the LTER Network, as well as the broader community of environmental scientists. Additional information about the LTER Network and the LTER Network Office can be obtained from the LTER homepage on the world wide web at http://lternet.edu. An International LTER (ILTER) Network has been developed recently, with the help of the LTER Network Office. The purpose of the ILTER is to encourage the development of a world-wide network of long-term research sites. Proposals for land/ocean-margin LTER sites may also consider the potential for developing international collaboration in conjunction with ILTER. Information on ILTER can be found at http://ilternet.edu. In developing proposals and planning the research for LTER's in land/ocean-margin ecosystems, potential LTER project groups are expected to demonstrate that they can provide the scientific and organizational coordination of their projects with ongoing research at the 18 existing sites, and, where appropriate, with international sites, as well. Research questions, analytical methods, information management, and data accessibility protocols are all important areas for planned coordination. An LTER proposal may be submitted for a site with ongoing research or for a site which would require an entirely new effort. It should be noted, however, that in previous competitions the existence of major, relevant long-term data bases for a site was viewed positively by peer reviewers. In addition, the Principal Investigator(s) will be expected to make a long-term time commitment to the proposed project, and to participate in relevant LTER Coordinating and Executive Committee activities! . ! In general, LTER investigators are expected to contribute to network-level, cross-site and synthesis activities, and to adhere to LTER Network data management policies. Use of existing federal and state facilities, and collaboration with other long-term research sites or programs, both national and international, is encouraged. Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to consider research sites within existing national research reserve systems. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) supports 21 field laboratory sites throughout the coastal U.S. (including the Great Lakes) as part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), and 13 National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) sites that are located in a number of diverse marine habitats. Many of these sites have extensive long-term data sets and support facilities. For specific information concerning NOAA's NERRS and NMS sites, please contact Dr. Michael P. Crosby at (301) 713-3125. PROPOSAL CONTENT To date, the general mission of the LTER Network has been to (1) understand ecological phenomena which occur over long temporal and broad spatial scales, (2) create a legacy of well-designed and documented ecological experiments, (3) conduct major syntheses and theoretical efforts, and (4) provide information necessary for the identification and solution of environmental problems. In general, an LTER site should investigate phenomena that cannot be studied under short-term funding cycles. Instead, LTER research should be developed around a site-specific conceptual framework that generates questions requiring experiments and observations over long time frames and broad spatial scales. The conceptual frameworks of the existing LTER sites are broadly focused around five core areas: - pattern and control of primary production, - spatial and temporal distribution of populations selected to represent trophic structure, - pattern and control of organic matter accumulation in surface layers and sediments, - patterns of inorganic inputs and movements of nutrients through soils, groundwater, and surface waters, and - patterns and frequency of disturbance to the research site. The five core areas help to focus and integrate LTER research within and across sites. These core areas are broadly defined and must be incorporated into the research to be conducted in land/ocean-margin ecosystems. In addition to the traditional LTER core areas, research at land/ocean-margin LTER sites will: - increase the understanding of the organization and function of land/ocean-margin ecosystems, - investigate the linkages between these systems and adjacent terrestrial and marine systems, and - increase the understanding of major natural environmental perturbations in these regions. Proposals should be developed as follows using the format and forms contained in NSF's Grant Proposal Guide (GPG, NSF 95-27) which can be obtained over the World Wide Web at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/cpo/start.htm. Please note the page limits contained in this announcement take precedence over those given in the GPG. Proposals will be subjected to initial screening for the requirements in the GPG and this announcement, and will be returned without review or advance notification if deficiencies are found. Proposals will not be forwarded to other Programs if found to be inappropriate for this competition. Proposals should be clearly identified by a title starting with the acronym, "LTER:," and the following should be placed on the cover sheet in the box for the NSF Organizational Unit, "LTER, NSF 97-XX." Proposals must be limited strictly to 25 single spaced pages for the body of the research narrative, including figures and tables (i.e., introduction, literature review, hypotheses, methods, data analysis, and logistics). Proposals should include explicit plans for the documentation, archiving, and dissemination of research data. All funded participants must adhere to the data management policies applying to recipients of federal funding from OCE and DEB, as well as the LTER Network policies. Proposals should be prepared in the following format: Section 1. Results from prior NSF support. A maximum of 5 pages of text may be used for this section. Section 2. Develop and explain the conceptual framework that provides the unifying theme for the proposed land/ocean-margin LTER research. Describe in some detail the long-term experiments, sampling protocols, and monitoring to be done, and explain how they fit into your conceptual framework. Describe the methods and data analyses so that the quality of these long-term efforts can be critically evaluated by reviewers. In addition, describe any short-term, mechanistic experiments, empirical studies, sampling programs, modeling efforts, etc., that will be conducted. Again, describe the methods and planned analyses in detail and explain how these short-term studies fit into the conceptual framework. Also, relate these efforts to the proposed long-term studies. Long-term studies in urban ecosystems pose unique problems that may not exist in remote and well-protected sites. Close this section with a synthesis that ties together the proposed research activities. Overall, an LTER site should be conducting hypothesis-driven, long-term research coupled with short-term mechanistic studies to derive understanding of long-term dynamics. Modeling efforts are important, and should be discussed in detail where appropriate. This section may have a maximum of 25 pages of text including figures and tables. Section 3. Literature Cited in Sections 1 and 2. Section 4. Describe the research management plan for the proposed site. Specifically, describe how funding, research, and participation management decisions will be made and how these actions will be implemented. This section may have up to two pages of text. Section 5. One of the real strengths of the LTER network is the quality and emphasis on information management and metadata standards. It is expected that data derived from LTER funding will be made freely and widely available as soon as possible, although exceptions are made for graduate student research. Describe the proposed information management system and metadata standards to be used at your site. How will the data manager be involved in the design of research projects? What mechanisms will you employ to assure that researchers contribute their data to the LTER databases? What criteria, if any, will be used to limit or provide other researchers access to data sets? How often will data sets be updated on the World Wide Web? Use up to two pages of text for this section. Section 6. Budget pages and detailed budget description. Funding will be provided at $560,000 per year for up to six years. It is expected from the outset that all projects will seek and document significant extramural funding from sources other than NSF and the home institutions of the investigators. Describe any cost sharing, other sources of funding, how the LTER funds will be leveraged at your site, and what other in-kind services will be provided and by whom. Section 7. Provide a one page curriculum vitae (CV) for each core scientist, and for key international participants, if relevant. List only FIVE publications per investigator on their CV. Also, provide an alphabetical list of all scientific collaborators and a list of conflicts of interest for the PIs and other LTER participants whose CVs' appear in the proposal rather than listing these seperately on each CV. Section 8. Current and Pending support of each investigator. The proposal text should be single-spaced with a 12-point font (or larger) and one (2.4cm) inch margins on all sides. Proposal originals should be printed on one side of the page only, bound only in the upper left corner, and numbered at the bottom of each page. Number each page of each section in the following format: 1-1, 1-2, ..., 1-5; 2-1, 2-2, ..., 2-25; 3-1, etc. Copies may be double-sided. SUBMISSION PROCEDURE Other than instructions stipulated above, preparation and submission of proposals must follow the guidelines given in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (NSF 95-27). Required NSF forms are found in the GPG which can be obtained from: Forms and Publications Unit, P-15 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 Tel: (703) 306-1130 FAX: (703) 644-4278 email: pubs@nsf.gov The original and twenty (20) copies of proposals, should be marked, "Do not open in mail room," and sent directly to: Announcement Number NSF 97-XX Biological Oceanography Program, Rm. 725 Division of Ocean Sciences National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 Proposals may also be submitted electronically. For information, contact the Electronic Proposal Submission Program Director, Division of Information Systems, phone (703) 306-0214, or via e-mail, eps@nsf.gov. If you have questions or require further information, contact Phil Taylor, Division of Ocean Sciences, phone: (703) 306-1587 or e-mail: prtaylor@nsf.gov, or Scott Collins, Division of Environmental Biology, phone: (703) 306-1479 or e-mail: scollins@nsf.gov. PROPOSAL REVIEW Review of proposals and will be handled cooperatively by the Divisions of Ocean Sciences and Environmental Biology. Proposals will be evaluated based on the four general criteria described in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide and in accordance with established NSF procedures for external merit review. The proposals' responsiveness to the stated goals of the LTER program will also be a major additional factor in the evaluation. WHO MAY SUBMIT U.S. organizations, including academic institutions, free-standing research institutions, scientific societies, and consortia of such institutions with appropriate research and educational programs in environmental biology, are invited to submit proposals. Proposals involving multi-institutional arrangements are permitted. AWARDS Proposals, due by April 15, 1997, will be evaluated by panel and their disposition communicated to applicants by August 1997. The award(s) will be made by 15 October 1997 with support up to $560,000 per year. The initial award will be for six years with continued support dependent on submission of meritorious renewal proposals, periodic in-depth site visits, and pending the availability of funds. Awards made as a result of this competition will be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions of NSF GC-1, "Grant General Conditions," FDP-III, "Federal Demonstration Project General Terms and Conditions," depending on the grantee organization. Copies of these documents are available at no cost from the NSF Forms and Publications Unit, phone (703) 306-1130, or via e-mail (pubs@nsf.gov). More comprehensive information is available in the NSF Grants Policy Manual (NSF 95-26) for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 (phone: (202) 783-3238). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Information on the existing Long-Term Ecological Research Program and the LTER Network Office is available at www.lternet.edu. Additional information and advice regarding LTER proposals and the integration of new sites into the LTER network can be found at http://lternet.edu/propinfo. Potential applicants are encouraged to contact : Dr. Scott L. Collins Division of Environmental Biology (703) 306-1479 ext. 6430 e-mail: scollins@nsf.gov The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for the research findings or their interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists and engineers and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research related programs described here. In accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on NSF projects. See the program announcement or contact the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636. Privacy Act and Public Burden. The information requested on proposal forms is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process; to applicant institutions/grantees; to provide or obtain data regarding the application review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers, and researchers as necessary to complete assigned work; and to other government agencies in order to coordinate programs. See Systems of Records, NSF 50, Principal Investigators/Proposal File and Associated Records, and NSF-51, 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995). Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records, 59 Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complet! e ! information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Herman G. Fleming, Reports Clearance Officer, Contracts, Policy, and Oversight, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment, or general information. To access NSF TDD, dial (703) 306-0090; for FIRS, 1-800-877-8339. OMB# 3145-0058 P.T. 34 K.W. 1007001, 1002000 NSF 97-xxx 7 The following is an attached File item from cc:Mail. It contains information that had to be encoded to ensure successful transmission through various mail systems. To decode the file use the UUDECODE program. --------------------------------- Cut Here --------------------------------- begin 644 ao-lter.doc MT,\1X*&Q&N$`````````````````````/@`#`/[_"0`&```````````````! M````.```````````$```.0````$```#^____`````#<```#_____________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M_______________________!D```R````$F4` M`+@```"L9````````*QD````````K&0```````"L9````````#IF```````` MEVD```````!29P``10(``%)G```````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````-#0T-#0U,3TY'+51%4DT@14-/3$]'24-! M3"!215-%05)#2"`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`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`N+BXL(#$M-3L@,BTQ+"`R M+3(L("XN+BP@,BTR-3L@,RTQ+"!E=&,N($-O<&EE2`H,C`I(&-O<&EE2!A;'-O(&)E('-U8FUI='1E M9"!E;&5C=')O;FEC86QL>2X@1F]R(&EN9F]R;6%T:6]N+"!C;VYT86-T('1H M92!%;&5C=')O;FEC(%!R;W!O6QO2!B>2!T:&4@1&EV:7-I;VYS(&]F($]C96%N M(%-C:65N8V5S(&%N9"!%;G9I'1E2!P86YE;"!A;F0@ M=&AE:7(@9&ES<&]S:71I;VX@8V]M;75N:6-A=&5D('1O(&%P<&QI8V%N=',@ M8GD@075G=7-T(#$Y.365A2!O9B!T:&4@2!S:&%L;"!B92!E>&-L=61E M9"!F2!!8W0@ M86YD(%!U8FQI8R!"=7)D96XN("!4:&4@:6YF;W)M871I;VX@2!T;R!C;VUP;&5T92!A2`R,RP@,3DY-2DN(%)E=FEE=V5R M+U!R;W!O2`Q-RP@,3DY-"DN("!3=6)M M:7-S:6]N(&]F('1H92!I;F9O2!R961U8V4@=&AE('!O2P@=VAI8V@@96YA8FQE'AX#1-004=%("`5#0T-$U!!1T4@ M(!0V%0T-#0T-'0".`(\!E@&9#*30+Z7@/::@!:>@!:B@!:F@!:H``!X`C@"/ M`9`!`)8!I-`OI>`]IJ`%IZ`%J*`%J:`%J@``&@".`)`!`*30+Z7@/::@!:>@ M!:B@!:F@!:H````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M``````````````````````````````````````````````````````,```8# M``!-`P``3@,``%(#``!M`P``>0,``(4#``"&`P``C`,```@$```/!```-`0` M`#<$``!$!```1@0``&,$``!D!```%@4``!@%```9!0``7`4``)X%``"Z!0`` M\@4``/,%```^!@``/P8``*H&``"K!@``&`<``!D'``!;!P``7`<``,<'``#( M!P``$`@``!$(``"0"```D0@``&H)``!K"0``N`D``+D)```G"@``*`H``,,* M``#$"@```PL```0+``!-"P``3@L``"8,```G#```.0P``#H,``!G#```:`P` M`.T,``#N#```&PT``!P-``!D#0``90T``,H-``#+#0``'0X``!X.``"3#@`` ME`X``,8.``#'#@``R@X``-H.``#Z#@``^PX``$8/``!'#P``E`\``)4/```A M$```(A```)<0``"8$```Y1$``.81```Q$@``1!(``/WX]/WNZ>[I_>G]Z?WF M_0#D`.+?X@#B`.0`Y`#D`.0`Y`#D`.0`Y`#D`.0`Y`#D`.0`Y`#D`.0`Y`#D M`.0`Y`#D`.0`Y`#=`.(`Y`#D`.0`Y`#D`.0`X@````)6@0`%58%N`0`"58$` M`VX!``55@5T#``A5@5T#`&,<```*58%6@5T#`&,<```&70,`8R@```A5@5T# M`&,H```#70,``%=$$@``KQ(``+`2``!F$P``9Q,``-H3``#M$P``*!0``$\4 M``!1%```4A0``.<4``#H%```-!4``#45``!Z%0``>Q4``.D5``#J%0``A18` M`(86``#[%@``_!8``&H7``!K%P``LQ<``+07```0&0``$1D``!L9``"F&0`` MIQD``%D:``!:&@``GAL``+`;``"Q&P``LAL``/4;``#V&P``AQP``(@<```> M'0``'QT``&0=``!E'0``L!T``+$=```@'@``(1X``/$>``#R'@``$"```!$@ M```](```/B```.D@``#J(```72$``%XA``"X(0``N2$``)HB``";(@``#",` M`"`C``!C(P``AR,```HE```+)0``724``%XE``#1)0``X"4```DF```?)@`` M/R8``$`F``"3)@``E"8``-LF``#<)@``(2<``"(G```%*```!B@```PH```6 M*```,"@``#$H``!S*```?2@``/\H````*0``NRD``+PI````_0#]`/L`^P#] M`/T`_0#]`/T`_0#]`/T`_0#]`/GU^?7Y^P#[`/T`_0#]`/T`_0#]`/T`_0#] M`/T`_0#]`/T`\P#[`/T`_0#[`/$`_0#]`/T`_0#]`/L`_0#[`/T`_0````)> M`0`"5H$`!ET#`&X!```#70,``E6!``-N`0``7[PI``"E*@``IBH``.XJ``#O M*@``J"L``*DK``#++```S"P``#4M```V+0``E2T``)\M``#'+0``T2T``.HM M``#K+0``-"X``#4N``"C+@``I"X``,PN``#6+@``WS$``.DQ``"(,@``B3(` M`+LS``#%,P``WS,``.`S``"N-```KS0``/LT``#\-```6C4``&0U``"W-0`` MN#4``"DW```]-P``NC<``,XW``!C.@``9#H``#([```S.P``K#L``+L[``!S M/```=#P``(<\``";/```MSP``+@\``#]/```_CP``$4]``!&/0``:3T``&H] M``!X/0``>3T``'H]``![/0``?#T``'T]``!^/0``?ST``+\]``#`/0``JCX` M`*L^``"_/@``P3X``,<^```2/P``$S\``*!```"A0```Z$```.E```"!00`` M@D$``"-"```[0@``?$(``'U"``#%0@``VT(``-Y#````_0#]`/T`_0#]`/L` M^P#]`/T`_0#[`/L`^0#[`/T`_0#]`/L`_0#[`/<`_0#]`/3R[O+K\N[R[O+N M\@#[`/L`Z`#H`.CDZ.3H`/L`_0#]`/T`_0#W`/T`^P````=N`0!)`0`!!$D! M``$`!5:!70,`!ET#`&X!```#70,`!56!70,``E:!``-N`VH"58$``VX!``!: MWD,``/I#``#>1```WT0``"1%```E10``PT4``,1%``#E10``YD4``,E&``#* M1@``:D<``&M'``"W1P``N$<``.=(``#H2```/TH``$!*``"V2@``MTH``.M+ M``#L2P``ITP``*A,``#U30``]DT``(U.``".3@``'T\``"!/``"\3P``O4\` M`'Q0``!]4```AE```(=0``"Y4```NE```+M0``#!4```PE```,-0``#%4``` MQE```,Q0``#-4```SE```,]0``#04```TU```-10```O40``_@#\`/P`_`#\ M`/P`_`#\`/P`_`#\`/P`_`#\`/P`_`#\`/D`^0#^\_'S\0#S\?/M\_$`_NL` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````"=0$`!E`0`&$`!``#4!``"W4!1`0````` M4!``!$D!``$``VX!``)5@34``P```0,```(#```#`P``!`,```4#```&`P`` M+`,``"T#``!-`P``3@,``$\#``!0`P``40,``%(#``!N`P``;P,``(4#``"& M`P``AP,``(@#``")`P``B@,``(L#``",`P``T0,```@$```)!```"@0```L$ M```,!```#00```X$```/!```-00``#8$``!$!```100``!H&```;!@``.0<` M`#H'``!N"```;P@``#8*``#^"`&0)"`!_@@!D"0@`?X(`9`D(`'^"`&0)"`! M_@@!D"0@`?X(`9`D(`'^"`&0).`!_@@!D"3@`?X(`9`DX`'^"`&0).`!^@@! MD"0@`?H(`9`D4`'^"`&0)"`!_@@!D"0@`?X(`9`D4`'^"`&0)%`!_@@!D"10 M`?X(`9`D4`'^"`&0)"`!_@@!D"0@`?X(`9`D(`'^"`&0)"`!_@@!D"0@`?X( M`9`D(`'^"`&0)%`!_@```````/X(`9`D(`'^"`&0)"`!_@@!D"0@`?X(`9`D M(`'^"`&0)"`!_@@!D"0@`?X(`9`D(`'^````````_@```````/<```````#W M"`'@$"`!]PS_X!"2#O<(`>`0&P'W"`C@$!L!]P@!X!`;`?<(">`0&P'W"`'@ M$!L!]P@-X!`;`0````````(```4#``,``"@1"````0``+#8*``!$#```10P` M`*<,``"H#```^PP``/P,``"L#0``K0T``/T-``#^#0``R`X``,D.``#*#@`` MW`X``-T.``!'$@``2!(``.\3``#P$P``>!@``'D8``">&P``GQL``*`;``"Q M&P``LAL``,H>``#+'@``^!X``/D>``!5'P``5A\``*P?``"M'P``&R```!P@ M``!:(```6R```)(A``"3(0``_0@/X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`/@$!L!_0@!X!`; M`?T(`^`0&P']"`'@$!L!_0@%X!`;`=X(`>`0)0']"`/@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T( M!N`0&P']"`'@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T(`>`0)0']"`'@$!L!_0S_X!"6&OT(`>`0 M&P']````````_0@!X!`;`?T,_^`0>B/]"`'@$!L!_0S_X!#-&?T(`>`0)0'] M"`'@$"4!_0@!X!`E`?T(`>`0)0']"!;@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T(`N`0&P']"`'@ M$!L!_0@#X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`/@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T(`^`0&P']"`'@$!L! M_0@"X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`G@$!L!_0@!X!`;`1X```4##0P,-/\!``@```$` M```!`&@!````````MP`````````````````````````````````````````` M`@``!0,HDR$``/(A``#S(0``5B(``%`0&P']"`/@$!L! M_0@!X!`;`?T```````#]"`'@$!L!_0S_X!!%%_T(`>`0&P']#/_@$%L#_0@! MX!`;`?T,_^`0S1S]"`'@$!L!_0@*X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']#/_@$$`"_0@!X!`; M`?T,_^`0R`?]"`'@$!L!_0S_X!!%%_T(`>`0&P']#/_@$$`"_0@'X!`;`?T( M`>`0&P']"`7@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T,_^`0-0S]"`'@$!L!_0S_X!!``OT(`>`0 M&P']"`O@$!L!_0@!X!`E`?T(`>`0&P']````````_0@!X!`;`?T(`>`0&P'] M"`'@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`'@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`3@ M$!L!_0@!X!`;`0`````````"```%`RTI.0``1SD``'`Y``"+.0``ISD``+TY M``#1.0``TCD``*0Z``"E.@``J3L``*H[``"K.P``K#L``+P[``"].P``:3T` M`&H]``!Y/0``>CT``,`^``#!/@``R#X``%I```#$0@``Q4(``-Q"``#=0@`` M_$,``/U#```N1```+T0``$1$``!F1```?T0``)A$``"91```FD0``,I%``#] M"`'@$!L!_0@"X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`'@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`'@ M$!L!_0@&X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`?@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`'@$!L! M_0@!X!`@`?T(`>`0(`']"`S@$"`!_0@!X!`;`?T(`>`0)0']"`'@$"4!_0@) MX!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`'@$"4!_0@+X!`;`?T($>`0&P']"`'@$!L!_0@!X!`E M`?T(`>`0&P']#/_@$.,(_0@!X!`;`?T(`N`0&P']"`'@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T( M`>`0&P']"`'@$!L!_0@!X!`;`?T(`>`0&P']"`'@$!L!_0@(X!`;`0`````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M``````````````````````````````````````````````(```4#)LI%```$ M2```7$D``(A-``!53P``>U```'Q0``!]4```?E```']0``"`4```@5```()0 M``"14```F5```*]0``"Z4```PU```,10``#%4```T%```-%0``#24```TU`` M`-10``#:"`_@$!L!V@@)X!`;`=H('.`0&P':"`W@$!L!UP```````-<````` M``#5"`'@$!L!U0@!X!`;`=4(`>`0&P'5"`'@$!L!U0@!X!`;`=4(`>`0&P'5 M"`'@$!L!U0@!X!`;`=4(`>`0&P'5"`'@$!L!S@```````,H```````#5```` M````S@```````,H```````#5````````U0```````-4(`>`0&P$````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````````````````````````````P\`$&@! M```&#P`=8!KX_QL!`"4"``$````"```%`P`E```%`Q3P````#SX`%-`"H`5P M"$`+$`[@$+`3@!90&2`<\![`(9`D8"$```X1```.T0```H$0`` M+A$``$H8``!0&```A!@``(H8``!C(```9R```&H@``!U(```=B```'D@``!Z M(```?2```'X@``"'(```HS4``*\U``"7-P``HC<``"XX```^.```X3X``.T^ M``#?0```XT```.9```#Q0```\D```/I```#%2P``S$L``)%-``"530``NDT` M`-5-```'`!P`!P`<``<`'``'`!P`!P`<``<`'``'`!P`!P`<``<`'``'`!P` M!P`<``<`'``'`!P`!P`<``<`'``'`!P`!P`<``<`'``'`!P`!P`<``<`'``' M`!P`!P`'`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`W7%!25$%93$]2+B1<5U=54T527$%/+4Q415(N M9&]C_T!(4"!,87-E0`` M````A`,``#P```"\.```O3@```<`````````__\``/____\`P````&`!`!8` M!0'__________P$`````"0(``````,````````!&``````!GZ;;/_+L!`.)) M*^<-O`$Z``````0``&DZ``!7`&\`<@!D`$0`;P!C`'4`;0!E`&X`=````/__ M````````````````````````````````T`+@$```````````&@`"`0(````# M````_____VDZ``!J.@``!P````````#__P``_____P#`````8`$`_____P`` M``"=;`````````$`0P!O`&T`<`!/`&(`:@```````````"P!``#]!@``A`,` M`#T```!J.@``>3H```<`````````__\``/____\2``(!________________ M`````````````````````````````````````````````````````&H````] M````!0!3`'4`;0!M`&$`<@!Y`$D`;@!F`&\`<@!M`&$`=`!I`&\`;@`````` M````````````````````````T`+@$"@``@'_____!````/____^$`P``$P(` M`'HZ``#`.P``!P`````````````````````````"````%`(````````!```` M_O___P,````$````!0````8````'````"`````D````*````_O___PP````- M````#@````\```#^____________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M_________________P$`_O\#"@``_____P`)`@``````P````````$88```` M36EC6QO<@`` M`/`>`````@```#@`0``>````'@```$UI8W)O; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:02:14 -0800 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:02:14 -0800 (PST) From: Ken Bible To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Summer forest ecology field assistant positions (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:03:36 -0800 From: "Steven A. Acker" SUMMER JOB FOREST ECOLOGY FIELD ASSISTANT DESCRIPTION: Several positions are available to assist in studies of upland and riparian forests in the mountains of western Oregon and Washington. The research sites range from recently disturbed areas to old-growth forests. The crew will be based at the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest near Blue River, Oregon. Duties include tree measurement, assessment of causes of tree mortality, identification of vascular plant species, estimation of plant cover, and plant biomass sampling. On-site housing at the Andrews Forest will be provided. There will be several camping trips away from the Andrews Forest. QUALIFICATIONS: Required: College courses in Forestry, Botany, or related fields. Field experience in forest or other vegetation sampling. Skill in conifer and vascular plant identification. Ability and willingness to work long hours in steep, brushy terrain. Desirable: Junior or higher standing. Familiarity with Pacific Northwest plants. SALARY: $7.00 / hour or more, depending on experience DURATION: June 16 - September 5, 1997 CLOSING DATE: April 1, 1997. Applications will be accepted after that date if positions remain open. TO APPLY: Send letter of application, resume, copies of college transcripts, and names, addresses, and telephone numbers of two references to: STEVE ACKER DEPARTMENT OF FOREST SCIENCE OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY FORESTRY SCIENCES LAB. 020 CORVALLIS, OR 97331-7501 FOR MORE INFORMATION: telephone 541 750 7325 electronic mail ackers@fsl.orst.edu From adub@lternet.edu Wed Mar 26 18:04:13 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA13950; Wed, 26 Mar 97 18:04:11 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa13552; 26 Mar 97 18:00 EST Received: from localhost by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA01786; Wed, 26 Mar 97 14:58:30 PST Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:58:30 -0800 (PST) From: Adrienne Whitener X-Sender: adub@lternet.washington.edu To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: MOFEP Symposium (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR MISSOURI OZARK FOREST ECOSYSTEM PROJECT SYMPOSIUM (MOFEP) *An Experimental Approach to Landscape Level Research* University of Missouri - St. Louis St. Louis, Missouri June 3-5, 1997 The MOFEP Symposium will be held in the J.C. Penney Conference Center on theUniversity of Missouri - St. Louis campus. The host hotel is Embassy Suites, located on Laclede's Landing in downtown St. Louis. Public transportation, St. Louis MetroLink, has convenient stops between both locations. MOFEP SYMPOSIUM: Schedule of Daily Events Monday June 2, 1997 Registration: 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m Embassy Suites Foyer Reception for Attendees: 7:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. Embassy Suites Tuesday June 3, 1997 Registration: 7:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon University of Missouri - St. Louis J.C. Penney Building (lobby) 9:00 a.m. Welcome and Introduction: Marvin Brown, State Forester Moderator: Brian Brookshire 9:15 a.m. The Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project: Past, Present and Future. Brian L. Brookshire, Daniel C. Dey and Randy Jensen. 9:45 a.m. The Experimental Design of the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project. Steven Sheriff and Zhuoqiong He. 10:15 a.m. An Analysis of MOFEP Ground Flora: Pre-Treatment Conditions. Jennifer K. Grabner, David R. Larsen and John M. Kabrick. 11:15 a.m. Abundance and Production of Berry Producing Plants on MOFEP Study Sites: The Soft Mast Study (Pre-Harvest Conditions). Debra K. Fantz and David A. Hamilton. 11:45 a.m. Analysis of Pre-Treatment MOFEP Woody Vegetation and Environmental Data: Evaluation for Compartment, Block and Treatment Trends in Species Counts, Density, Diameter and Basal Area. John M. Kabrick, David R. Larsen and S. R. Shifley. Moderator: Daniel Dey 1:15 p.m. Acorn Production on the MOFEP Study Sites: Pre-Treatment Data. Larry D. Vangilder. 1:45 p.m. Patterns of Genetic Variation in Woody Plant Species in the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (MOFEP). Victoria L. Sork, Anthony Koop, Marie Anne de la Fuente, Paul Foster and Jay Raveill. 2:15 p.m. Snags and Down Wood on Upland Oak Sites in the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project. Stephen L. Shifley, Brian L. Brookshire, David R. Larsen, Laura Herbeck and Randy Jensen. 3:15 p.m. The Effects of Selected Timber Management Practices on Forest Interior Birds in Missouri Oak-Hickory Forests. Richard L. Clawson, John Faaborg and Elena Seon. 3:45 p.m. Estimating Pre-Treatment Variation in the Oak Herbivore Fauna of the Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project. Robert J. Marquis and Josiane Le Corff. 4:15 p.m. The Distribution and Abundance of Leaf Litter Arthropods. Jan Weaver and Sarah Heyman. Wednesday June 4, 1997 Registration: 7:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon University of Missouri - St. Louis J.C. Penney Building (lobby) Moderator: Frank Thompson 9:00 a.m. Pre-Treatment Conditions of Herptofaunal Communities on Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (MOFEP) Study Sites, 1992-1995. Rochelle B. Renken 9:30 a.m. Pre-Harvest (1994-1995) Conditions of the MOFEP Small Mammal Community. Debra K. Fantz and Rochelle B. Renken. 10:00 a.m. Microclimatic Characteristics in Southeastern Missouri Ozarks. Jiquan Chen, Ming Xu and Kimberly D. Brosofske. 11:00 a.m. Determination of the Ecological and Geographic Distributions of Armillaria Species in Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystems. Johann N. Bruhn, James J. Wetteroff, Jeanne D. Mihail and Susan Burks. 11:30 a.m. Landforms, Geology and Soils of the MOFEP Study Sites. Dennis Meinert, Tim Nigh and John Kabrick. 1:00 p.m. Aspects of Carbon and Sulfur Transformations in MOFEP Surface Soils: Pre-Treatment Conditions. Henry G. Spratt Jr.. 1:30 p.m. Missouri Ozark Forest Soils: Perceptions and Realities. R. David Hammer 2:00 p.m. Historic Shortleaf Pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) Abundance and Fire Frequency in a Mixed Oak-Pine Forest (MOFEP, compartment 8). Richard Guyette and Daniel C. Dey. 2:30 p.m. Simulated Long-Term Effects of MOFEP Cutting Treatments. David R. Larsen Allied Projects and Program Updates 3:30 p.m. Chilton Creek Management Area: The Effects of Prescribed Fire on a Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem. Blane Heumann. 3:50 p.m. MOFEP Lichen Project: Profiling Lichen Vegetation of Interior Highland Woodlands. Doug Ladd. 4:10 p.m. North Central Forest Experiment Station Ecosystem Research. Stephen Shifley and Felix Ponder, Jr. 4:40 p.m. Ouachita Mountains Ecosystem Management Research. James Guldin. 5:00 pm. Discussion and Symposium wrap-up Thursday June 5, 1997 MOFEP Field Trip A field trip to the MOFEP study sites is available to symposium participants and guests on Thursday, June 5, 1997. Greyhound buses will depart from the Embassy Suites hotel at 7:00 a.m. and will arrive on site at approximately 9:30 a.m. Field trip participants will be introduced to a number of MOFEP studies, and treatment implementation will be thoroughly discussed. Lunch will be provided on site and buses will depart back to St. Louis at 3:00 p.m., arriving at Embassy Suites at approximately 5:30 p.m.. Please plan on joining us for an exciting day in the beautiful Ozarks! Evening Opportunities Embassy Suites is located at Laclede*s Landing in downtown St. Louis. The hotel is within walking distance of a number of fine restaurants, gambling boats, the Gateway Arch and numerous other attractions. A packet of information will be sent to you concerning various St. Louis attractions once your registration is received. Hotel Accommodations Embassy Suites 901 North First Street St. Louis, MO 63102-2548 (314)241-4200 Fax: (314)241-6513 Reservations: 1-800-EMBASSY (FREE AIRPORT SHUTTLE AVAILABLE) Room Rates $74.00 Single/Double $89.00 Triple $104.00 Quad (Reservations must be made by May 2, 1997) Directions to Embassy Suites by vehicle from: *Lambert International Airport Take I-70 east to Convention Center/Arch/Riverfront exit to stoplight. Stay in far right-hand lane. Follow signs that say Riverfront to Convention Plaza. At Convention Plaza make left to light in far right-hand lane. Go straight across (which is Laclede*s Landing Blvd.) 2 blocks to First Street make a left, go half a block and hotel is on left hand side of street. *I-64, I-55 or I-44 Take Memorial Drive/Downtown exit. Get in the far right-hand lane on Memorial Drive to Washington Blvd. Make a right. Go 2 blocks to First Street. Go left for 3 blocks. The hotel is on the left side of the street. Directions to Embassy Suites by MetroLink from: *Lambert International Airport The MetroLink Station at the airport is located adjacent to the TWA ticketing desk on the upper level of the main terminal. Take MetroLink to Laclede*s Landing stop and walk 1 1/2 blocks north to hotel. University of Missouri - St. Louis Campus 2 - J.C. Penney Building Directions to UM - St. Louis from Embassy Suites by vehicle: Take I-70 west to Hanley Road south to Natural Bridge Road. Take Natural Bridge Road east and turn left at first light and park in Lot C. Directions to UM - St. Louis from Embassy Suites by MetroLink: Walk 1 1/2 blocks south from hotel to MetroLink Station. Take MetroLink to UMSL North Station and walk to J.C. Penney Building (use map above). Additional Information Upon registration for the Symposium you will receive additional materials concerning evening opportunities, using MetroLink Transit System and additional maps for traveling in and around St. Louis. Program Questions: Contact: Brian Brookshire Missouri Dept. Of Conservation P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180 Phone:( 573)751-4115 ext. 304 E-mail: brookb@mail.conservation.state.mo.us Registration Questions: Contact: Dave Klostermann (information listed in registration form) REGISTRATION Please complete the following registration information and return by May 16, 1997 to: Dave Klostermann University Missouri - St. Louis Continuing Education and Outreach 8001 Natural Bridge Road St. Louis, MO 63121-4499 Fax: (314)516-6414 Phone: (314)516-5958 Name:_______________________________________ Address:_____________________________________ City, State & Zip______________________________ Phone:_______________________________________ Fax:_________________________________________ E-mail:______________________________________ Organization:_________________________________ Registration Fees (if registered by May 16, 1997) Registration includes reception, meeting sessions, proceedings, breaks, and lunches. * Regular - $85.00 * Student - $25.00 * Field trip - $10.00 * Field trip(guest) - $10.00 Field Trip - June 5, 1997 (MOFEP Tour incl./ lunch) Total $____________ After May 16, 1997 registration fees will increase $20.00 for both Regular and Student registrations. Make checks payable to University of Missouri - St. Louis. Credit Card Registration:MasterCard/Visa/Discover Charge $_____________ Card #_______________________________________ Exp. Date____________ Amount Paid $___________ Signature____________________________________ Fees are payable by cash, check or charge. From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu Mar 27 20:45:09 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA18429; Thu, 27 Mar 97 20:45:08 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa26245; 27 Mar 97 20:42 EST Received: from pyxis.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13158; Thu, 27 Mar 97 17:41:29 PST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu(really [129.24.168.188]) by pyxis.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:42:06 -0700 (MST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #22 built 1997-Mar-21) Received: from relampago.unm.edu by sevilleta.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA05232; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:43:23 -0700 Received: from localhost by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02014; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:41:02 -0700 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:41:01 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Mission to Planet Earth testimony Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Witness Calls for Abolishment of Mission to Planet Earth At his first hearing as chair of the House Science Subcommittee on Space, to discuss authorization of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) enlivened the proceedings with a last-minute witness who urged abolishment of the program. The CATO Institute's Edward Hudgins claimed that the program was politically-driven, "a bogus issue based on bad science," and an excuse for NASA to keep asking for money. Hudgins said he would "like to see the federal government pull back from civilian space activities" and, ultimately, "get out of science." Subcommittee Democrats protested that they had not been given sufficient notice of this late addition to the witness panel, and Rohrabacher agreed that their complaint was justified. Although Hudgins was the last witness to testify, the other witnesses addressed most of his charges in their testimony. NASA's Mission to Planet Earth is part of the multi-agency US Global Change Research Program. Rohrabacher, who in the past has called the theory of global warming "at worst...liberal claptrap," declared that he supported scientific research to study "how the planet works," but questioned why the program was requesting a 4% increase over its FY 1997 budget of $1.36 billion at a time when the total NASA budget is declining. William Townsend, NASA's Acting Associate Administrator for Mission to Planet Earth, welcomed the opportunity to explain why the program should not be considered "liberal claptrap." He said the program is not focused on global warming per se, but on how the Earth functions as a system, based on five principal themes laid out in its Science Plan: Land Cover and Land Use Change; Seasonal-to-interannual Climate Variability and Prediction; Natural Hazards Research and Applications; Natural Variability and Change of Long-term Climate; and Atmospheric Ozone Research. Since its origin in 1991, the program has instituted significant changes to respond to concerns about cost, spacecraft size, use of advanced technologies, complexity of the data system, and involvement of the private sector, Townsend reported. This has resulted in expected program costs through 2000 being reduced more than 60% from earlier projections. In 1998, he said, "the EOS era begins in earnest" with the launching of AM-1 and Landsat 7. The FY 1998 request of $1.42 billion, he explained, was "necessary to carry out" those upcoming launch plans. The space agency's efforts to rein in program costs run counter to Hudgins' claim that NASA sees "environmental projects as potential cash cows." Hudgins also claimed that NASA activities discouraged development of a private sector space infrastructure, and argued that NASA should simply purchase the data needed. Townsend noted that NASA has made an effort to involve the private sector more heavily in Mission to Planet Earth and is "moving toward data purchase whenever possible." NASA Chief Technologist Samuel Venneri pointed out that requirements for the program's Data and Information System and much of the hardware "exceeded today's industry standards." He added that while the program is considering transferring its data system out from under federal control in the future, it would require three to five years for next-generation networks to be able to handle the amount and complexity of information produced. To Hudgins' criticism that the "mission itself is of questionable value, based on political considerations rather than real science," Harvard University's Steven Wofsy, chairman of the Earth Systems Science Applications Advisory Committee, responded that the committee found the program to have "very high scientific integrity" and to be "motivated by important environmental and policy issues." During the question-and-answer period, he called Hudgins' remark a "pretty nasty charge with no corroborating evidence." Wofsy noted that NASA has responded "very vigorously and positively" to the committee's concerns, including a caution that the balance of program funding was tipped towards space hardware and away from research and analysis. Also, while Hudgins charged that the program was initially based on "fear of global warming" and that a broader research scope was an example of "mission creep," Wofsy argued that "environmental data gathering has been a part of the program from the beginning." In reply to Hudgins' statement that NASA "muscled in on the territory of EPA," Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) pointed out that such Earth system research was placed in NASA's purview by the 1958 act that established the space agency. Last year the House Science Committee passed an authorization that reduced Mission to Planet Earth funding by over $300 million from the FY 1997 request of $1.4 billion, but appropriators did not incorporate the reduction into their final funding bill. Rep. Walter Capps (D-CA) inquired about the effect of such a reduction to the FY 1998 budget. Townsend said it would result in a substantial delay in deployment of the full set of measurement capabilities. With a strong aerospace industry in his district, Rohrabacher is an avid supporter of some NASA programs, such as the space station, but also a deficit hawk. He warned that it was "a good idea to look for potential savings in all programs" to balance the budget. He gave no indication of when his subcommittee might draft a NASA authorization bill. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Wed Apr 30 10:46:20 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA22728; Wed, 30 Apr 97 10:46:19 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa10588; 30 Apr 97 10:44 EDT Received: from crux.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA21730; Wed, 30 Apr 97 07:42:12 PDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu(really [129.24.168.188]) by crux.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 08:38:52 -0600 (MDT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #24 built 1997-Apr-29) Received: from relampago.unm.edu by sevilleta.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA11328; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 08:43:47 -0600 Received: from localhost by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA02842; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 08:41:09 -0600 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 08:41:09 -0600 (MDT) From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: Web Site - 30 Years of Trends in North American Birds (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Subject: Web Site - 30 Years of Trends in North American Birds 30 years of changes in bird populations in North America (U.S. and Canada) are now available on the Web. http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html - Data for approximately 500 species - Thousands of analyses of population trends - Species distribution maps for North America - Species maps identifying regions of increase and decrease - Thousands of graphs of population change - Information about species identification and biology is integrated throughout the site - Click on a map of North America and get a checklist with relative abundance. - On-the-fly customized analyses of population trend (species, route, geographic area, time period) are available. http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html Data are developed from the North American Breeding Bird Survey Program. A joint U.S./Canadian venture run and managed by Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (USGS/BRD) and the Canadian Wildlife Service. Data come from a stratified-randomized sampling scheme of over 4000 survey locations from throughout North America (1966-1996). For further questions contact John R. Sauer (john_r_sauer@nbs.gov). ***Another Patuxent Skunkworks Project*** From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Thu May 22 09:41:41 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA05429; Thu, 22 May 97 09:41:40 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa04941; 22 May 97 9:40 EDT Received: from crux.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA15672; Thu, 22 May 97 06:39:10 PDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu(really [129.24.168.188]) by crux.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Thu, 22 May 1997 07:35:06 -0600 (MDT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #42 built 1997-May-14) Received: from relampago.unm.edu by sevilleta.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA15447; Thu, 22 May 1997 07:41:07 -0600 Received: from localhost by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA00705; Thu, 22 May 1997 07:38:16 -0600 Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 07:38:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #65 - OSTP Report (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR OSTP Report to Congress on Science and Technology Programs Biennially, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) reports to Congress on the Administration's policies, programs, and plans relating to science and technology. The most recent report, "Science and Technology Shaping the 21st Century" (141 pages), released in April, describes programs implemented by the Clinton Administration to support the goals developed in earlier science and technology policy documents. Federal support for R&D is not formed as a single comprehensive unit, nor is it discussed that way by Congress. Instead, it is an amalgam of funding going to different departments and agencies for different purposes. For example, NSF has the role of fostering university-based research across all disciplines. NIST's objective is to provide support and infrastructure to American industries, and the mission agencies (like NASA, DOE and DOD) use science and technology to further their own purposes. It is the task of OSTP and the cabinet-level National Science and Technology Council to develop overarching goals and a coordinated strategy in which all scientific fields are supported but redundancy is avoided, and in which results from one field are disseminated for use in other areas. The April report includes chapters on six general areas: science; technology; national security and global stability; environment; health; and human resources. In each case, the chapter provides a snapshot showing current Administration activities and how they support national goals. Scattered throughout the chapters are case studies, many related to physics, of ways research has proven beneficial to society. The report does not, however, evaluate whether all the programs are effective at achieving their intended purposes. The Administration's goals for Science were described in the 1994 policy statement, "Science in the National Interest" (see FYIs #120-122, 1994.) The current report highlights a number of research areas currently receiving emphasis, such as the origins of life, the solar system and the universe; medical advances through genetics research; and sustainable development. It lists many of the government's major new scientific facilities, and cites selected recent discoveries in basic science, including confirmation of a third major branch of life; potential evidence of past life on Mars; the possibility of liquid oceans on Europa; proof of the top quark's existence; achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation; and many more. The chapter on Technology is based on the guiding principles in President Clinton's 1993 document, "Technology for America's Economic Growth: A New Direction to Build Economic Strength" (see FYI #23, 1993.) The new report discusses the importance of technology to the nation's economic growth and cites a portfolio of federal policies and programs that encourage, catalyze and support private-sector innovation leading to advances in areas such as prosthetic tissue engineering; semiconductor manufacturing; fiber-optic communications; high-performance computing and the global information infrastructure; air traffic management; and automobile fuel efficiency. The chapter on National Security and Global Stability highlights improvements in warfighting capabilities; maintaining the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile; countering terrorism; responding to infectious diseases around the world; as well as international cooperative programs in sustainable development, communications and information technologies, to name a few. The chapter on Environmental science and technology cites advances in assessment of weather and climate change; improvements to prediction capabilities; and attempts to develop avoidance or mitigation technologies. The Health chapter discusses the strides made in increasing life expectancy; better understanding of disease processes and new prevention strategies; the promise of genetic research; and increases in food safety and sustainable production. Education and workforce training has received significant federal attention in recent years, as demonstrated by the Human Resources chapter. Significant funds and research have gone into understanding how to improve child development and K-12 education, including NSF's Systemic Reform Initiatives and the Administration's Goals 2000 program. Additional federal programs provide direct loans and grants for higher education, and reward outstanding teachers, mentors and young researchers. Requests for copies of the April 1997 report, "Science and Technology Shaping the Twenty-First Century," should be faxed to OSTP at 202-456-6022, attention "Ceci." ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Jun 3 00:52:26 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06428; Tue, 3 Jun 97 00:52:24 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa26394; 3 Jun 97 0:51 EDT Received: from crux.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06714; Mon, 2 Jun 97 21:50:54 PDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu(really [129.24.168.188]) by crux.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:50:51 -0600 (MDT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #44 built 1997-Jun-2) Received: from relampago.unm.edu by sevilleta.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA19033; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:50:49 -0600 Received: from localhost by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA00490; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:49:51 -0600 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:49:50 -0600 (MDT) X-UIDL: 865350528.001 From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu, biofac@bioogy001.unm.edu Subject: FYI #68 - Now is the Time (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Now is the Time When the House and Senate return to Washington next week they will complete work on a budget document clearing the way for them to start writing the appropriations bills for the new fiscal year starting on October 1. The actions occurring during the next few weeks will determine the amount of money available for civilian and defense R&D in the coming year. Before Congress left for the Memorial Day recess there was much talk about the budget deal worked out between the Clinton Administration and Congress. Under this broad brush outline, the federal budget should balance by 2002. Both the House and Senate have put this deal into a legislative package called a budget resolution that will be compromised into a final version when Congress returns next week. The resolution does not spare future science and technology spending. It does not go into details, lumping NSF, most of NASA, and DOE's physics programs in a category called "Science, Space and Technology." This category is projected for significant reductions by 2002. House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) said last week, "I would be less than honest if I didn't share with you my dismay with the funding levels... If this budget resolution is adopted, we will be spending less in real dollars in 2002 than we did in 1991. If we are for investing in America's future and keeping American technology number one, we need to do a better job...." Although the budget resolution - which is a near certainty - is important, since it sets the government on a path toward a balanced budget by 2002, almost no one in Washington puts much stock in the individual years' spending numbers. The budget resolution is not law, and even within Congress it is not a set plan. Key administration and congressional players stress the importance of considering each new fiscal year's appropriations bills on their own -- in other words, crossing each bridge as you come to it. We are at that point for fiscal year 1998. As soon as the budget resolution is settled, the appropriations committees will meet to decide how much money each of the 13 subcommittees get to "spend." Once these "602(b) allocations" are made, the subcommittees will start writing their bills. This process begins in the House of Representatives. While the House subcommittee bills are not the last word on an agency's budget, they are a very important first word. Over the last few months there has been considerable attention given to federal R&D spending by science and technology organizations. The message has been well-received by the media, and is being reinforced by friendly Members of Congress. What is now needed is for individual constituents to inform their representatives and senators of their opinions about science and technology budgets. FYI #69 provides guidance on writing letters, and references appropriations subcommittee rosters. It is important for the appropriators, and your individual representatives, to know your opinion. Now is the time to write. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Tue Jun 3 00:57:39 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA06435; Tue, 3 Jun 97 00:57:38 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa27559; 3 Jun 97 0:55 EDT Received: from crux.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA06719; Mon, 2 Jun 97 21:54:49 PDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu(really [129.24.168.188]) by crux.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:54:47 -0600 (MDT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #44 built 1997-Jun-2) Received: from relampago.unm.edu by sevilleta.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA19061; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:54:45 -0600 Received: from localhost by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA00493; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:53:47 -0600 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:53:46 -0600 (MDT) X-UIDL: 865350528.002 From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu, biofac@biology001.unm.edu Subject: FYI #69 - Writing to Congress (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Writing to a Member of Congress Once Congress agrees upon a final Budget Resolution, the next step is to determine funding allocations for the 13 appropriations subcommittees in each chamber. After receiving their allocations, subcommittee chairs, beginning in the House, will begin drafting the legislation that will fund the agencies and programs under their jurisdiction. That is THE TIME to contact appropriators regarding concerns over funding for particular programs. One of the best ways to communicate with a Member of Congress is through a well-reasoned personal letter. Taking the time to write a letter shows sincerity and thoughtfulness. Your correspondence will more effective if you follow these guidelines: Timing is important. A letter sent after Congress acts is a missed opportunity, while correspondence sent months before an issue is considered is likely to be forgotten. The House will be acting on appropriations bills in the next few weeks. The Senate will act soon after. Now is the time to write! Limit your letter to one page and one subject. Avoid scientific jargon. In the first paragraph, explain your reason for writing. Briefly note your "credentials," and include other pertinent information. In the second paragraph, describe the importance of the issue. Cite relevant facts and avoid emotionalism. Frame your discussion from a national, rather than a personal, perspective. In the third, and concluding paragraph, request (not demand) a specific action. Thank the Member for his/her consideration of your views. Offer assistance. Ensure that your letter is legible, and includes your name, address, and telephone number. Traditional correspondence is more easily handled, and is generally thought to be more effective, than electronic mail in many congressional offices. Faxes should be avoided unless there are time constraints. The correct address style is: The Honorable __________ The Honorable __________ United States House of Representatives United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Representative __________: Dear Senator __________: Cite a specific bill when possible. You may contact us at the Government and Institutional Relations Office of the American Institute of Physics for assistance (fyi@aip.org) Rosters of the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittee members with jurisdiction over selected R&D agencies can be found on AIP's Physics and Government Page as listed below. For the agency or program you are interested in, refer to the relevant bill by its proper title, as follows: For NIST: The FY 1998 Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill. (See FYI #7, 1997, or http://webster.aip.org/gov/doc.html for committee rosters.) For DOD: The FY 1998 Defense appropriations bill. (See FYI #9, 1997, or http://webster.aip.org/gov/dod.html for committee rosters.) For DOE civilian R&D: The FY 1998 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. (See FYI #8, 1997, or http://webster.aip.org/gov/doe.html for committee rosters.) For NASA: The FY 1998 VA/HUD/Independent Agencies appropriations bill. (See FYI #10, 1997, or http://webster.aip.org/gov/nasa.html for committee rosters.) For NSF: The FY 1998 VA/HUD/Independent Agencies appropriations bill. (See FYI #10, 1997, or http://webster.aip.org/gov/nsf.html for committee rosters.) Information on the Administration's FY 1998 request for each of these agencies, and the latest congressional action, is available at http://webster.aip.org/gov/budginfo.html Tips for visiting your Members of Congress can also be found on AIP's Physics and Government page at http://webster.aip.org/enews/fyi/1996/fyi96.011.txt ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Mon Jul 28 11:24:12 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09699; Mon, 28 Jul 97 11:24:09 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa02308; 28 Jul 97 11:22 EDT Received: from pyxis.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA13451; Mon, 28 Jul 97 08:19:42 PDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu(really [129.24.168.188]) by pyxis.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:19:38 -0600 (MDT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #44 built 1997-Jun-2) Received: from relampago.unm.edu by sevilleta.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA12776; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:19:40 -0600 Received: from localhost by relampago.unm.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA06000; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:19:40 -0600 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:19:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: Forwarded mail.... Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:03:36 -0400 From: Fall Meeting Abstaract To: jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu ATTENTION: The following Chapman Conference may be of interest to hydrologists interested in cutting edge of research and development relating to all types of hydrologic processes in natural systems. Chapman Conference on Fractal Scaling, Non-linear Dynamics, and Chaos in Hydrologic Systems May 5-8, 1998 Madren Conference Center Clemson University Anderson, South Carolina CONVENERS: Fred J. Molz, Clemson University Upmanu Lall, Utah State University Ignacio Rodriguez-Iturbe, Texas A&M University CONFERENCE SCOPE: This conference is intended to be on the cutting edge of research and development relating to all types of hydrologic processes in natural systems. When possible, the underlying physics and mathematical concepts will be emphasized. The purpose of the conference is to bring together the leading researchers working on fractal scaling, non-linear dynamics, and self-organization, many of whom are in different sub-disciplines. Participants are expected to leave the conference with a greatly expanded vision concerning fractal scaling, nonlinear dynamics and chaos in hydrologic systems. Both theoretical and applied aspects will be emphasized, which will help participants to make the distinction between what we can do now and where we might be going. Hopefully, some insights will arise concerning the connection(s) between fractals and self-organized, nonlinear, dynamical systems, with resulting implications for the origin of sediments and sedimentary rock. Since virtually all atmospheric, surface and subsurface hydrologic processes involve interacting nonlinear components, the conference should encourage the development of a highly interdisciplinary perspective. Graduate students should come away with an enhanced appreciation for both the simplicity and complexity of non-linear dynamical processes and a perception of the benefits of an interdisciplinary approach tounderstanding the structure and dynamics of natural hydrologic processes. CONFERENCE FORMAT The conference will be composed of invited speakers and volunteered presentations in both an oral and poster format. We expect to have two speakers from outside the field of hydrology. One will be a fractal artist, Dr. F. Kenton Musgrave, who will make a presentation at the conference banquet that will be entertaining as well as informative. The other will be a physicist or mathematician able to provide insight into where the field of self-organization and non-linear dynamics is going in a very general sense. The organizers will try to attract presentations that explain and illuminate the underlying concepts and unity of the various topics so that the conference will appeal to a broad variety of participants with various levels of expertise in non-linear science and fractal scaling. TRAVEL SUPPORT Funding is available to provide partial support for students attending the meeting. Application forms for travel support can be obtained from the AGU Meetings Department at the address listed . The deadline for receipt of travel applications is January 8, 1998. Awardees will be selected by the convenors. ABSTRACT DEADLINE: January 8, 1998 A camera-ready original and two copies of all abstracts must be submitted in standard AGU abstract format to the address below. If you wish to submit your abstract using e-mail, contact the AGU Meetings Department at E-mail: meetinginfo@agu.org PREREGISTRATION DEADLINE: TBD Complete registration and housing information will be available by February 1998. Future information pertaining to this conference (i.e. scientific program, housing, registration) will be sent to those who have either submitted an abstract or have asked to be placed on the mailing list. Those not submitting abstracts who wish to be placed on the mailing list, please contact: AGU Meetings Department Fractal Scaling Conference 2000 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 462-6900 Fax: (202) 328-0566 E-mail: meetinginfo@kosmos.agu.org From real-jporter@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Aug 23 11:31:05 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA07086; Sat, 23 Aug 97 11:31:04 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by mail.virginia.edu id ac08853; 23 Aug 97 11:22 EDT Received: from sevilleta(really [129.24.168.188]) by sevilleta.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 09:16:18 -0600 (MDT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1997-Aug-13) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 09:16:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Deborah Potter X-Sender: ulinski@sevilleta To: lter users Subject: Forwarded: National News Release (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="_33fe89ae.5cde.0_msaumail.att.net=_" Content-Id: Status: OR This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --_33fe89ae.5cde.0_msaumail.att.net=_ Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: Deborah Ulinski Potter Research Assistant Professor of Biology For Immediate Release to all media outlets. (See attached notes on USDA scientific committee nominations). --_33fe89ae.5cde.0_msaumail.att.net=_ Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: Content-Description: Message-Version: 2 UA-Content-ID: End-of-Header: EMail-Version: 2 UA-Message-ID: End-of-Protocol: Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit United States Forest Washington 14th & Independence SW Department of Service Office P.O. Box 96090 Agriculture Washington, DC 20090-6090 NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE Alan Polk (202) 205-1134 Jim Petterson (202) 720-4623 jim.petterson@usda.gov GLICKMAN REQUESTS NOMINATIONS FOR COMMITTEE OF SCIENTISTS WASHINGTON, Aug. 15, 1997--Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman today announced nominations are now being requested for membership on the Committee of Scientists which will provide the Secretary with scientific and technical recommendations on the Forest Service land management planning process. "It is time to take a fresh look at the Forest Service's land and resource management planning process in light of emerging ecosystem mangement efforts,"Glickman said. "We are committed to streamlining processes while ensuring biodiversity, long-term sustainability, and public collaboration in current and future forest planning efforts." The Committee of Scientists will evaluate the current process and make recommendations on how to accomplish better sound resource management planning. They will consider topics such as biological diversity, use of recent ecosystem assessments, and sustainable forestry as they pertain to future Forest Land and Resource Management plans. The committee will also provide comments for the Forest Service to consider for incorporation into the revised planning regulations. "Our business on the National Forests is changing,"said Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment Jim Lyons. "We need a highly credible scientific team to update the planning process to reflect evolving priorities such as recreation, water quality, public involvement, and sustainability." The Committee of Scientists will consist of 13 individuals from disciplines including: forest and range ecology, fish and wildlife biology, silviculture, hydrology, sociology, land management planning, and natural resource law. Nominations for membership on the committee, which is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, should be submitted by August 30 via mail to the Director, Ecosystem Mangement Coordination, Mail Stop 1104, Forest Service, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC, 20090-6090, or by telefax to the Director, Ecosystem Mangement Coordination at (202) 205-1012. Notice of the establishment of the Committee of Scientists and the request for nominations is published in the Federal Register on Aug. 15. Additional information can be obtained by contacting Jonathan Stephens, Ecosystem Mangement Coordination Staff, Forest Service, telephone: (202)205-0948. # NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the Internet. Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov --_33fe89ae.5cde.0_msaumail.att.net=_-- From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Fri Sep 12 14:54:58 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA11349; Fri, 12 Sep 97 14:54:53 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id ab06995; 12 Sep 97 14:46 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA22480; Fri, 12 Sep 97 11:42:28 PDT Received: from relampago(really [129.24.170.24]) by sevilleta.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:42:27 -0600 (MDT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1997-Aug-13) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:42:27 -0600 (MDT) From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #111 - VA/HUD Conferees (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR House and Senate Conferees Named for VA/HUD Appropriations Bill Both the House and the Senate have now named their conferees for H.R. 2158, the VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 1998. As with the rest of the appropriations bills, conferees need to meet on this bill and reconcile their differences so it can be passed by both houses and signed by the President before the beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1. There are a number of items to be resolved in conference. For NSF, the House would provide $120 million more than the request; the Senate would give only $10 million above the request. The House would increase Research and Related Activities by $23 million over the request; the Senate again would increase it by only $10 million. The House would also provide more than requested for Education and Human Resources, and Major Research Equipment, while the Senate would fund these accounts at the requested levels. The House would increase funding for NASA by $148 million over the request, increasing human space flight by $100 million, while providing the requested levels for space science and Mission to Planet Earth. The Senate would fund human space flight, space science, and Mission to Planet Earth at the requested levels. An amendment on the Senate floor, to cut NASA's mission support by $100 million to increase HUD and FEMA programs, makes the Senate recommendation for NASA come in $100 million below the request. In addition to overall funding totals, issues to be reconciled include full up-front funding for NSF's South Pole Station upgrade (the House would provide multi-year funding; the Senate would not), and the House's recommendation to give the NASA Administrator authority to transfer up to $150 million from Science, Aeronautics and Technology and Mission Support to keep space station construction on schedule, which the Senate was silent on. The following Members of Congress will take part in the VA/HUD conference: SENATE CONFEREES: (named July 22) Republicans: Christopher Bond (Missouri), Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens (Alaska),Full Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (Mississippi), Member of Full Committee Conrad Burns (Montana) Richard Shelby (Alabama) Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colorado) Larry Craig (Idaho) Democrats: Barbara Mikulski (Maryland), Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Robert Byrd (West Virginia), Full Committee Ranking Minority Member Patrick Leahy (Vermont) Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey) Tom Harkin (Iowa) Barbara Boxer (California) HOUSE CONFEREES (named September 3) Republicans: Jerry Lewis (California), Subcommittee Chairman Robert Livingston (Louisiana), Full Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom DeLay (Texas) James Walsh (New York) David Hobson (Ohio) Joe Knollenberg (Michigan) Rodney Frelinghuysen (New Jersey) Mark Neumann (Wisconsin) Roger Wicker (Mississippi) Democrats: Louis Stokes (Ohio), Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member David Obey (Wisconsin), Full Committee Ranking Minority Member Alan Mollohan (West Virginia) Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) Carrie Meek (Florida) David Price (North Carolina) Correspondence to Senators should be addressed as follows: The Honorable ______, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. Correspondence to Representatives should be addressed: The Honorable ______, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515. Write soon so your letter is received in time to have an impact. All correspondence should cite bill number H.R. 2158. FYI #69 provides guidelines for writing to a Member of Congress. ##END########## From jgosz@sevilleta.unm.edu Sat Oct 11 11:24:04 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA15463; Sat, 11 Oct 97 11:24:02 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa20516; 11 Oct 97 11:20 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05232; Sat, 11 Oct 97 08:10:25 PDT Received: from relampago(really [129.24.170.24]) by sevilleta.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:10:24 -0600 (MDT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1997-Aug-13) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:10:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: FYI #122 - Final NSF Bill (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR Final FY 1998 Budget Figures for NSF Yesterday, following less than three minutes of debate, the Senate completed action on the final version of H.R. 2158, the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill. The bill now goes to the President. There is almost uniformly good news to report for the National Science Foundation. TOTAL BUDGET: Congress provided $62 million more than requested. The total budget increases 5%, or $159 million, to $3.429 billion. The administration sought a 3% increase. There was no conference report language on the agency as a whole. RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES: Congress provided $31 million more than requested. The Research and Related Activities budget increases approximately 5%, or $114 million, to $2.546 billion. Conference report language touched on several programs to be funded within this budget: Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence, Life and Earth's Environment: Conferees require "appropriate milestones and guideposts, to be accomplished in fiscal year 1998, and against which the agency can be measured in determining funding for fiscal year 1999," before NSF obligates any additional money. Next Generation Internet activities are be funded through the Research and Related Activities budget, and are to receive up to $23 million from the collection of domain name fees. Also endorsed was previous Senate language "on participation in current computing and communications programs" by EPSCoR States, which will also describe "how the agency plans to address equal access, particularly to rural areas; and include the plans for the role of EPSCoR States." Rather extensive language was included on the phase-out of two supercomputing centers. Conferees want a report on how NSF will achieve an "orderly phase-out and seamless transition," with attention given to high-end users. The conference report also provides $40 million above the request for a "competitive, peer-reviewed plant genome research program." Conferees also provided $1 million for the United States/Mexico Foundation for Science, and also encouraged "NSF to study how it would establish and operation a National Institute for the Environment." MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT: Congress provided $24 million above the request. The Major Research Equipment budget increases $29 million to $109 million. The conference report states: "The conferees agree to provide $4,000,000 for technical enhancements to the Gemini telescope project and $70,000,000 for upgrades to Antarctic facilities. The amount provided for Antarctic facilities includes $35,000,000 to be made available immediately and the remaining $35,000,000 to be available on September 30, 1998. [The administration requested $25 million.] The conferees have not provided the budget request of $25,000,000 for the Polar Cap Observatory. The conferees direct the National Science Foundation to provide the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate an analysis of alternative sites for location of the observatory and a report on the scientific justification for the project." EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES: Congress provided $7 million more than requested. The total budget increases 2.3%, or $14.5 million, to $632.5 million. The conference report language states: "The conferees agree to provide $2,000,000 for Advanced Technology Education and $5,000,000 for an initiative to improve the production of science and engineering doctorates drawn from under-represented groups as proposed in the House report. In addition, the conferees agree that the Foundation should provide $6,000,000 for an undergraduate reform initiative to increase the numbers of under-represented populations in mathematics, engineering and the sciences as proposed in the Senate report." ************* In addition to the above VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, Congress has completed work on the following appropriations bills followed by FYI: Energy and Water Development (DOE) and National Security/Defense (DOD). The Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill has passed both the House and Senate, and is awaiting final conference committee action. A resolution of the census sampling problem in the Commerce bill is still, according to one appropriations staffer, a "heartburn item." Reports indicate the block grant proposal for federal education programs is going to be dropped by the Labor, HHS, and Education conference committee. ##END########## From jhp7e@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Mon Oct 20 11:54:08 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09373; Mon, 20 Oct 97 11:54:03 EDT Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa08569; 20 Oct 97 11:49 EDT Received: by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA09303; Mon, 20 Oct 97 11:49:47 EDT Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:58:06 -0600 (MDT) Resent-From: "John H. Porter" Resent-Message-Id: <9710201549.AA09303@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.3 5/22/91) Resent-To: vcrpi@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Received: from by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AB04511; Sat, 18 Oct 97 01:02:25 EDT Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa19120; 18 Oct 97 0:59 EDT Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA05771; Fri, 17 Oct 97 21:58:07 PDT Received: from relampago(really [129.24.170.24]) by sevilleta.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:58:07 -0600 (MDT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1997-Aug-13) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:58:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu Subject: NSF FUNDS FIRST LONG-TERM STUDIES OF URBAN ECOLOGY (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Status: OR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:22:08 -0400 From: medwards@nsf.gov To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: NSF FUNDS FIRST LONG-TERM STUDIES OF URBAN ECOLOGY Embargoed until 6 P.M., EDT Media contact: October 19, 1997 Cheryl Dybas NSF PR 97-63 (703) 306-1070/cdybas@nsf.gov Program contact: Scott Collins (703) 306-1479/scollins@nsf.gov NSF FUNDS FIRST LONG-TERM STUDIES OF URBAN ECOLOGY The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded grants for two long-term studies of urban ecology, representing the first attempts ever made to study the long-term ecology of urban environments. Through the NSF grants, scientists may soon have answers to such questions as: Is an urban existence good for wildlife? What is "natural"? And do ecological relationships operate in as complex a manner in urban landscapes as in so-called pristine settings? The awards will involve research on urban environments in the cities of Phoenix, Arizona, and Baltimore, Maryland, through NSF's Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program. Phoenix and Baltimore will soon become the most thoroughly and scientifically studied urban environments in the world, according to Scott Collins, director of NSF's LTER program. "Factors that control urban ecosystems are not only environmental, but also social and economic. These factors and their interactions need to be considered to understand urban ecosystems over long time frames and broad spatial scales," says Collins. Scientists affiliated with the new urban LTER sites will work in several areas, including: =FA Examining human impacts on land use and land-cover change in urban systems, and relating these effects to the overall ecosystem; =FA Monitoring the effects of human-environmental interactions in urban systems, and developing appropriate tools (such as Geographical Information Systems, or GIS) for data collection and analysis of socioeconomic and ecosystem data; =FA Developing integrated approaches to linking human and natural systems in urban ecosystem environments; =FA Integrating research with local K-12 educational systems. The new LTER sites will add two to the previous list of 18 such NSF sites in North America and Antarctica. "The previous sites represent a broad array of ecosystems and research emphases," says Collins. "But none of the already existing sites explicitly focuses on human-dominated ecosystems." The new NSF grants have been made to Arizona State University, for the "Central Arizona-Phoenix" urban LTER site, and to the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York, for the "Metropolitan Baltimore" urban LTER site. Scientists at several other institutions also share in these awards. "This is a quantum leap in studying the way the urban environment works," says ecologist Charles Redman, one of three Arizona State University directors of the Phoenix site. "In the past, people have been concerned with how cities operate, people have been concerned about the environment, people have been concerned about movement of goods, but there have been no projects to look at it all." Adds biologist Nancy Grimm, also a Phoenix site director, "Among scientists, there's no question that humans are now a driving force in all ecosystems on earth. As a science, ecology has traditionally studied what is perceived as 'pristine' ecosystems. But there are few ecosystems left that are unaffected by humans. There's been a call for ecologists to begin studying ecosystems that are affected by humans." Phoenix and Baltimore were chosen in part because, according to Collins, they represent two ends of the spectrum, in terms of their histories. "Phoenix is changing very quickly, with desert turning into farmland, industrial and residential sites almost weekly. In Phoenix, 'before' and 'after' experiments are possible. =20 Baltimore, on the other hand, has a history that extends back to the=20 1700s. This long history will allow ecologists to look at human=20 settlements as ecosystems, across three centuries. The results should give us a good idea of how humans and the lands they inhabit are=20 interacting." Steward Pickett, director of the Baltimore site and a scientist at the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, says that "urban ecosystems are ecology's last frontier. The knowledge gained from working on that frontier will strengthen the field of ecology and enhance its value to people as metropolitan areas grow." -NSF- NSF is making a transition to a new form of electronic distribution of news materials. We will eventually replace the current "listserve" with a new Custom News Service. From the toolbar on NSF's home page, (URL: http://www.nsf.gov), you can sign up to receive electronic versions of all NSF materials (or those of your own choosing). NSF is an independent federal agency responsible for fundamental research in all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of about $3.3 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states, through grants to more than 2,000 universities and institutions nationwide. NSF receives more than 50,000 requests for funding annually, including at least 30,000 new proposals. Also see NSF news products at: http://www.nsf.gov:80/od/lpa/start.htm, http://www.eurekalert.org/, and http://www.ari.net/newswise From jhp7e@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Fri Oct 31 11:31:32 1997 Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19800; Fri, 31 Oct 97 11:31:28 EST Received: from amazon.evsc.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa00036; 31 Oct 97 11:25 EST Received: by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19688; Fri, 31 Oct 97 11:25:30 EST Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:35:47 -0700 (MST) Resent-From: "John H. Porter" Resent-Message-Id: <9710311625.AA19688@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.3 5/22/91) Resent-To: vcrpi@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU, vcrgrad@amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU Received: from mail.virginia.edu by amazon.evsc.Virginia.EDU (4.1/1.34) id AA19217; Fri, 31 Oct 97 09:54:22 EST Received: from lternet.lternet.washington.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa23976; 31 Oct 97 9:47 EST Received: from sevilleta.unm.edu by lternet.lternet.washington.edu (4.1/UW-NDC Revision: 2.4 ) id AA26298; Fri, 31 Oct 97 06:37:09 PST Received: from relampago(really [129.24.170.24]) by sevilleta.unm.edu via sendmail with smtp id for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:35:47 -0700 (MST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1997-Aug-13) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:35:47 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Gosz X-Sender: jgosz@relampago To: pi@lternet.edu, lter@sevilleta.unm.edu Subject: El Nino and lagged plant growth Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: OR The following document (pr9767) is now available from the NSF Online Document System Title: Plant Growth Surges After Global Temperature Spikes Type: News Releases Subtype: Biology, Geosciences It may be found at: http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?pr9767 Full text follows. ---------------------------- CUT HERE ---------------------------- Title: Plant Growth Surges After Global Temperature Spikes, Scientists Report Study Hightlights Importance of Regional Analyses Date: October 30, 1997 Embargoed until 6 P.M., EDT Media contacts: October 30, 1997 Cheryl Dybas NSF PR 97-67 (703) 306-1070/cdybas@nsf.gov Anatta UCAR Communications (303) 497-8604/anatta@ucar.edu PLANT GROWTH SURGES AFTER GLOBAL TEMPERATURE SPIKES, SCIENTISTS REPORT Study Highlights Importance of Regional Analyses El Nino events or volcanic eruptions can boost or depress global temperatures within months, but their strongest impacts on the earth's biosphere may not occur until one to three years later, according to a paper published in the October 31st issue of Science. Regional analyses show that a global warm spell's initial boost in plant activity is clustered in polar and temperate areas. On the other hand, heat-stressed tropical and semiarid regions may show an initial drop in plant production. The results, reported by scientists affiliated with the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, lend credence to the notion that biological effects of global change can vary substantially across the globe. According to NCAR's David Schimel, one of the paper's authors, the results highlight the power of new data sets on global change, as well as the usefulness of computer models that connect the atmosphere and biosphere. "We were looking specifically for delayed ecosystem responses in this study because they had been predicted by the models," Schimel notes. The global temperature record revealed several multiyear patterns, including warming associated with El Nino events in the 1980s. These patterns were correlated globally with carbon dioxide levels and regionally with vegetation growth. Global carbon dioxide levels, which are steadily rising due to human activities, tended to rise more quickly over the first few months after a global temperature peak. The carbon dioxide levels rose at a slower pace during the one-to-three-year period after the temperature peak, followed by another gradual acceleration. The authors studied the temperature-vegetation relationship by region at data points separated by one degree latitude and longitude (roughly 85 by 110 kilometers, or 50 by 70 miles). At the peak of a warm period, plant growth tended to increase in polar and temperate regions and decrease at lower latitudes, including tropical rainforests and drier savanna/grassland regimes. "This contrast suggests that . . . temperature may have direct negative impacts on plant growth, or may increase water stress in semiarid ecosystems," the authors note. However, in the one-to-three-year period after a temperature peak, the patterns appear to reverse: plant growth is enhanced in the warmer and drier regions and limited at higher latitudes. Thus, low-latitude plant growth appears to be driving the enhanced uptake of carbon dioxide during this period. The paper highlights the importance of regional analyses of climate change to detect areas where effects may run counter to a global average. This is the first data-based study to consider regionally-specific ecosystem responses on a global scale, says Schimel. The results show that ecosystems are sensitive to temperature perturbations. Co-authors of the paper include Schimel, and Rob Braswell, Ernst Linder and Berrien Moore, of the University of New Hampshire (UNH). -NSF- ---------------------------- CUT HERE ---------------------------- -- NSF Custom News Service http://www.nsf.gov/home/cns/start.htm Please send questions and comments to webmaster@nsf.gov